Moralez v. Moore et al
ORDER re: 60 MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery with Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by Glenn J. Page., ( Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 7/21/2017)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:17-cv-10567
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
MICHAEL SHANNON MOORE,
THOMAS WILSON, AMANDA RISKA,
ROBERT D. MOORE, JASON GANZHORN,
RICHARD MICHAEL KLIMMER,
GERALD WHALEN, GLENN J. PAGE,
PATRICK BURTCH, JENNY MORRIS,
SHERIDAN SURVEYING, P.C.,
THOMAS TINKLEPAUGH, and
ORDER REGARDING MOTION PRACTICE, SETTING DEADLINES and
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT PAGE’S MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY (DE 60)
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in pro per on February 21, 2017. On June 13,
2017, this Court entered an order which, in part, noticed a status / scheduling
conference for June 21, 2017. (DE 50.) On that date, Plaintiff appeared, as did the
following defense attorneys: Brendon R. Beer (for Michael Shannon Moore and
Robert D. Moore); Rhonda R. Stowers (for Ganzhorn, Klimmer, Burtch, Morris,
Tinklepaugh and Brooker); Jason A. Geissler (for Whalen); and Elizabeth R. Husa
Briggs (for Page).1 Upon consideration:
Plaintiff is reminded that, although he represents himself, he is
presumed to know and to proceed in accordance with the court
rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ.
P.), the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan (E.D.
Mich. LR), and my own practice guidelines, the latter two of
The deadline for filing dispositive motions asserting that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted or asserting an argument based on jurisdiction or
immunity is Friday, July 21, 2017.
Discovery is STAYED until the Court has decided any such
dispositive motions. Accordingly, Defendant Page’s June 19,
2017 motion for protective order staying discovery (DE 60) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
There will be no further Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling
conference, and the Court excuses the parties from engaging in
a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference.
Finally, from this date until the Court states otherwise, the
parties must seek leave of Court before filing any motion. The
procedure for seeking such leave will be as follows: (a) the
moving party must comply with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)
(“Seeking Concurrence in Motions and Requests.”); (b) if
concurrence is not obtained, the moving party shall file a onepage letter explaining the basis for the proposed motion, and (c)
the opposing side(s) will have one week within which to file its
own one-page response. Thereafter, I will consider the moving
The non-appearance of Defendant Sheridan Surveying, P.C., will be addressed
party’s letter request and rule upon whether the proposed
motion may be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 22, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?