Arnold et al v. Heyns et al

Filing 75

ORDER Granting 69 Motion for Continuance and to Reopen Discovery - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-14137
DISTRICT JUDGE LINDA V. PARKER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

DANIEL H. HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY [69]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and to Reopen Discovery. (Docket
no. 69.) Defendant filed a Response (docket no. 70), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (docket no. 72).
Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ third dispositive motion, filed with the Court’s
permission on December 18, 2015. (Docket no. 65.) All pretrial matters have been referred to
the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 40.)
Discovery in this matter closed on November 20, 2015. Defendant conducted discovery,
but Plaintiff did not, although Plaintiff (and his former co-plaintiffs) did attempt to conduct some
discovery through the Court. (See, e.g., docket nos. 24 and 44.) Throughout the pendency of
this matter, Plaintiff has attempted to secure counsel; he was finally able to do so through the
ACLU in January of 2016. Counsel’s appearance, however, is contingent on the Court granting
Plaintiff’s instant Motion as counsel believes that additional discovery is required to properly
litigate on Plaintiff’s behalf. (See docket no. 69.) Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion asks that the Court
reopen discovery and permit him to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1

following the close of the new discovery period. (Id.)
The Court held a hearing in this matter on April 28, 2016. At the hearing, the Court asked
Plaintiff’s counsel what information Plaintiff hoped to obtain through discovery, what discovery
requests Plaintiff intended to serve on Defendants, and how long Plaintiff needed to conduct such
discovery. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel significantly broadened the scope of Plaintiff’s claims
by noting that Plaintiff had been transferred from the St. Louis Correctional Facility to the
Macomb Correctional Facility and that due to this transfer, discovery would need to include
additional interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions related to the second facility.
Thus, counsel indicated, Plaintiff would need six months to complete discovery without any
additional limitations. As they did in their initial response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants
argued that Plaintiff’s request should be denied because Plaintiff was dilatory in not conducting
discovery during the initial discovery period and that if the Court were inclined to grant Plaintiff’s
request, discovery should be limited in terms of scope and time.
The Court may extend a deadline for good cause and may grant a continuance at its
discretion. When deciding whether good cause exists to reopen discovery, the Court considers
whether the movant’s neglect created the need and whether other reasons (such as prejudice to the
non-moving party) exist for denying the motion. See Morgan v. Gandalf, Ltd., 165 F. App’x 425,
431 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s recent acquisition of counsel is good
cause to reopen discovery. And although Plaintiff did not conduct discovery during the initial
discovery period, it appears that he unsuccessfully attempted to do so. Moreover, the Court finds
that Defendants will not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s additional discovery. While the Court
appreciates the time and expense incurred by Defendants during the proper discovery period, these

2

efforts and expenditures do not lose value if Plaintiff has an opportunity to conduct additional
discovery. And because Plaintiff has not yet conducted discovery in this matter, his efforts will
not be cumulative.

To the extent Defendants incur additional expense through Plaintiff’s

discovery, these are the same expenses Defendants would have incurred had Plaintiff conducted
discovery during the appropriate window.
The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff’s discovery is not wholly uninhibited. During the
hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated her intent to file a Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s instant
complaint to add additional parties and (possibly) additional claims. The Court cautions Plaintiff
that discovery in this matter is limited to the claims and defendants currently included in this
matter; that is, discovery into additional defendants or claims would be outside the scope
contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance and to Reopen
Discovery [69] is GRANTED:


The Court hereby reopens discovery in this matter for a limited time according to the
following schedule:
DISCOVERY CUTOFF (All Discovery Responses Due): August 19, 2016
DISCOVERY MOTION CUTOFF:

September 2, 2016

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
**Because the dispositive motion period has
already closed, leave of Court is required for
Plaintiff to file a dispositive motion.

3

September 30, 2016

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: April 29, 2016

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served on counsel of record on this date.
Dated: April 29, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

4