Davis et al v. Detroit, City of et al
OPINION AND ORDER Reluctantly Granting 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Detroit, City of AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE. ( Status Conference set for 1/20/2017 02:30 PM before District Judge Paul D. Borman), MOTIONS WILL NOT BE HEARD ON THAT DATE, ALL COUNSEL MUST APPEAR. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
and HATEMA DAVIS,
Case No. 15-10547
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,
David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER RELUCTANTLY GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF
DETROIT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND SCHEDULING STATUS
Now before the Court is Defendant City of Detroit’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed
December 29, 2016. (ECF No. 105.)
Plaintiffs served on Defendant City of Detroit the document requests underlying this
dispute on October 13, 2016. (See ECF No. 106-1.) After Defendant City of Detroit raised certain
objections to those requests in a telephonic discovery conference between the parties and the
Magistrate Judge on November 30, 2016, a compliance deadline of December 30, 2016 was set,
with the qualification that Defendant City of Detroit could redact certain privileged information
from the documents so long as it also furnished a privilege log to Plaintiffs on the same date. (See
ECF No. 104.) Defendant City of Detroit filed the instant motion one day before the compliance
deadline, on December 29, 2016. (ECF No. 105.) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition the next
day. (ECF No. 106.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides that a court may, for good cause, extend the
time to comply with a deadline “if a request is made . . . before the original time or its extension
expires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(A). In support of good cause, Defendant City of Detroit claims
an inability to comply with the deadline “due to the holidays, personnel shortages, and the amount
of material in the prospective responses.” (ECF No. 105, at *6.) This does not amount to good
cause, given the amount of time Defendant City of Detroit had to comply with the request, as well
as the amount of time that it delayed before filing this motion. Defendant City of Detroit’s conduct
is vexatious under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
As Plaintiffs note, however, the requested documents—comprised primarily of personnel
records and civilian complaints related to the individual police officer Defendants in this
action—might well be relevant to issues of class certification, and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Certify Class Action is currently scheduled for January 20, 2017 at 2:30 PM. The Court finds
that this requires cancelling the January 20, 2017 class certification hearing. In lieu of that hearing,
the parties are hereby required to attend a status conference on the same date and time, at which a
new compliance deadline for Defendant City of Detroit will be established, and a new date for the
class certification hearing will be set.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS all parties to attend a status conference on January 20,
2017 at 2:30 PM. The hearing on Defendant Arthur Leavells’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, also scheduled for January 20 at 2:30 PM, will not occur at that date and time. The
hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class Action is hereby cancelled. The hearing on
Defendant Leavells’ motion is also cancelled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 11, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney
or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 11, 2017.
Case Manager (313)234-5122
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?