Brown v. The Professional Group et al
Filing
53
ORDER Granting in Part 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Case Management and Scheduling Order and to Extend Pre-Trial Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. (MacKay, K)
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.697 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIRENE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PROFESSIONAL GROUP,
Case No. 20-11466
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY
CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER AND TO EXTEND
PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES (ECF No. 40)
Plaintiff Virene Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights suit without
assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1). Now represented by an attorney, she moved
to modify the case management order. (ECF No. 40). Defendant responded (ECF
No. 41) and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 42). This matter is referred to the
undersigned for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 33). This motion is fully briefed
and ready for determination.
I.
BACKGROUND
The undersigned issued a case management order setting deadlines for
discovery and dispositive motions. (ECF No. 28). Later, the parties agreed to
extend the dispositive motion deadline to August 25, 2022. (ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff moved to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (ECF No.
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.698 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 6
40).
Plaintiff has not met the deadlines for Rule 26(a) disclosures, fact, and
expert witness lists, and fact discovery deadlines. (Id. at PageID.293). In
Plaintiff’s motion, she admits that she could not comply with the deadlines set in
the undersigned’s case management order because she was ill-equipped to comply
with deadlines as a dayworker. (Id.). Now that she has legal representation,
Plaintiff contends she can comply with extended deadlines. (Id. at PageID.294).
Thus, she asks for another ninety days to comply with outstanding discovery
deadlines. (Id. at PageID.296).
Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to show good cause to modify the case
management order because being pro se is not good cause. (ECF No. 41,
PageID.310). Plaintiff also failed to show “excusable neglect” for failing to
request an extension before the deadlines expired. (Id. at PageID.313). Finally,
Defendant contends the case management order does not allow belated disclosures,
or witness and exhibits lists. (Id. at PageID.315). Plaintiff reiterated her
arguments in reply. Defendant later moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 44)1,
to which Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 50) and Defendant replied (ECF No. 52).
II.
ANALYSIS
1
The undersigned does not find that this moots the motion to extend deadlines. Since
this Order extends the dispositive motion deadline, Defendant may withdraw its motion for
summary judgment and refile it after discovery closes.
2
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.699 Filed 10/25/22 Page 3 of 6
A. Legal Standards
Liberal discovery rules allow litigants to see the full breadth of the evidence
that exists in a case. This helps litigants avoid surprises, leads to the speedier
settlement of cases, and helps prevent miscarriages of justice when evidence would
otherwise be available to only one party. Brown Badgett, Inc. v. Jennings, 842
F.2d 899, 902 (6th Cir. 1988). Rules favoring broad discovery help “make a trial
less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and
facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” United States v. Procter &
Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
strongly favor full discovery whenever that is possible. Republic of Ecuador v.
Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir. 2013); Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble
Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985).
A case management order can be modified if there is “good cause and with
the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(4). “The primary measure of Rule 16’s
‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet the
case management order’s requirements.” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613,
625 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court
should also consider possible prejudice to the party opposing the modification.
Id. “Even if an amendment would not prejudice the nonmoving party, the moving
party must nonetheless demonstrate good cause for ‘why he failed to move for the
3
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.700 Filed 10/25/22 Page 4 of 6
amendment at a time that would not have required a modification of the scheduling
order.’” Barnes v. Malinak, 2017 WL 3161686, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. July 25, 2017)
(quoting Korn v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 382 F. App’x 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2010)).
B. Discussion
There is good cause to modify the case management order and extend
discovery deadlines. Upon review of the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff has
proved good cause. Inge, 281 F.3d at 626.
First, Plaintiff detailed her struggles in complying with discovery deadlines
as a dayworker with no legal training. (ECF No. 40, PageID.292-93). She
responded to Defendant’s interrogatories and document requests, but struggled
with serving her own discovery requests, disclosures, and witness lists. (Id. at
PageID.293-94). She moved for an order allowing Mr. Sharpe to enter a limited
appearance on her behalf. (ECF No. 35). The undersigned granted her request in
part. (ECF No. 38). Seventeen days later, Plaintiff’s new counsel filed this motion
to extend pretrial deadlines. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff remedied her failure to
conduct discovery on her own by retaining counsel. Further, “some leniency” may
be appropriate when a pro se Plaintiff struggles with discovery. Logan v. MGM
Grand Detroit Casino, 2017 WL 1074942, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2017)
(granting pro se plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, as plaintiff’s pro se status
was persuasive).
4
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.701 Filed 10/25/22 Page 5 of 6
Second, as Plaintiff notes, without extending discovery deadlines, she will
be prejudiced by being “denied any meaningful right to conduct discovery.” (ECF
No. 40, PageID.295). Courts favor broad and full discovery whenever possible.
See Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. at 682. Full discovery for both parties is
particularly important considering Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Ruling on a motion for summary judgment is appropriate “only after the
nonmoving party has had ‘adequate time for discovery.’” E. Kentucky
Cardiothoracic Surgery, P.S.C. v. Ashland Hosp. Corp., 119 F. App’x 715, 717
(6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))
(emphasis added).
III.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the case management order
(ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART. Discovery deadlines are extended
SIXTY DAYS from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which
5
Case 2:20-cv-11466-NGE-CI ECF No. 53, PageID.702 Filed 10/25/22 Page 6 of 6
the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full
force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district
judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2. The district judge may sustain an objection
only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Date: October 25, 2022
s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?