United States of America v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS AND MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 58 . Dispositive Motion Cutoff re-set for 12/3/2018; Expert Discovery Cutoff re-set for 9/24/18. (Refer to image for additional dates) - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LHos)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-12146
DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN
STATE OF MICHIGAN AND
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS
AND MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 
Plaintiff United States of America initiated this employment civil rights action against
Defendants State of Michigan and Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) on June 13,
2016, asserting claims of discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Docket nos. 1, 6.) This matter is
before the Court on Defendants’ June 7, 2018 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Expert
Witness Reports and Modify Scheduling Order. (Docket no. 58.) Plaintiff filed a Response to
Defendants’ Motion on June 11, 2018. (Docket no. 59.) On June 29, 2018, the Motion was
referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 61.) The Court has reviewed the
Motion, dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
7.1(f)(2), and is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Defendants move to extend the deadline for the submission of their expert witness reports
by 60 days, from June 7, 2018, to August 6, 2018, and to correspondingly extend all other
expert-related deadlines and the dispositive motion deadline as set forth in the March 12, 2018
Scheduling Order (docket no. 53) by 60 days. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides
that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Good cause is met by determining the moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet the
scheduling order and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice by amending the
scheduling order. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003).
Defendants explain that they are unable to meet the current expert witness report deadline
due to Defendants’ lead counsel’s illness, for which she was recently hospitalized and is now on
a medical leave of absence. Defendants further explain that they have since transitioned this
matter to other attorneys, who are now working diligently to meet all obligations in this matter.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the requested modifications to the
Scheduling Order because they are not seeking to amend the May 28, 2019 trial date.
Plaintiff responds that it is sympathetic to the ongoing health issues of Defendants’ lead
counsel but argues that Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested 60day extension and that such an extension would be prejudicial to Plaintiff. Plaintiff explains that
Defendants have had Plaintiff’s expert witness disclosures since April 19, 2018, and the
Scheduling Order provided Defendants with 49 days thereafter to complete and file their expert
witness disclosures, by June 7, 2018. Plaintiff points out that the requested 60-day extension is
longer than the original amount of time provided by the Scheduling Order, and, if granted, would
give Defendants nearly four months to complete their expert disclosures. Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants have not explained why they need such a long extension of time. Plaintiff also
asserts that Defendants must have known long before June 6 (Defendants’ first communication
to Plaintiff regarding an extension) that they would not be able to meet their expert report
deadline, and they have failed to explain why they did not provide Plaintiff with more notice of
their need for an extension. Plaintiff further asserts that it will be prejudiced by the requested
extension because it will unduly delay discovery and cause Plaintiff’s major deadlines in this
matter to occur at times when key team members and Plaintiff’s expert are unavailable. Plaintiff
also points out that when first approached by Defendants regarding a 60-day extension, Plaintiff
counter-proposed a 32-day extension to Defendants’ expert witness deadline and alternative
modifications to the other dates in the Scheduling Order; however, Defendants implicitly
rejected Plaintiff’s proposal by filing the instant Motion.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion is a
little light on good cause. Nonetheless, at this juncture, and in consideration of the alternative
dates proposed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that minimal prejudice will result from a 45-day
extension of the Scheduling Order deadlines.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to
File Expert Witness Reports and Modify Scheduling Order  is GRANTED IN PART,
amending the deadlines in the current Scheduling Order  as follows:
Defendants’ Expert Disclosures: July 23, 2018;
Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: September 10, 2018;
Expert Discovery Cutoff: September 24, 2018;
Motions Challenging Experts and Dispositive Motions: December 3, 2018; and
All other dates remain as scheduled.
Should the parties’ proposed stipulation to stay all deadlines for ninety days be entered, the stay
will apply to these dates as well.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date
of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Dated: July 12, 2018
s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon counsel of record
on this date.
Dated: July 12, 2018
s/ Leanne Hosking
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?