Rogers v. Aldrich

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 16 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAULETTO ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:15-cv-13940
District Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

MARK ALDRITCH, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MARK ALDRICH’S MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE MORE THAN ONE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 16)
Defendant Mark Aldrich filed a motion to stay discovery and for leave to file
more than one motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2016. (DE 16.)1 This
matter was referred to me on July 14, 2016 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (DE
21.)
Pursuant to the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules, any response in
opposition must have been filed within 14 days after service of the motion. E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s response, therefore, was due on or before
Friday, April 15, 2016. To date, no response has been filed. Although Plaintiff is
1

Judge Berg issued a scheduling order on February 9, 2016 setting forth the
relevant deadlines. (DE 14.) Notably, the discovery cutoff was set for July 11,
2016 and the dispositive motion deadline is August 22, 2016.

proceeding without the assistance of counsel, he is still required to follow the
Court rules with respect to deadlines, as no supplemental scheduling order was
issued in this matter. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion will be considered
unopposed.
Plaintiff brings this action asserting that Defendant Aldrich stopped his
vehicle unlawfully on the basis of his race and illegally extended the length of the
routine traffic stop. (DE 1.) He also names the City of Bellville Police
Department as a Defendant in this action.
In the instant motion, Defendant Aldrich asks the Court to stay all dates in
the case management order pending the Court’s disposition of a motion for
summary judgment asserting qualified immunity as a defense, which was filed on
July 21, 2016. (DE 23.)2 In the event the motion is unsuccessful, Defendant
Aldrich seeks leave to file more than one motion for summary judgment in this
action. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s motion and the relevant case law, and
agrees that a stay would be appropriate in this matter and that Defendant is entitled
to file more than one motion for summary judgment if his motion based on
qualified immunity is unsuccessful. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED as unopposed. (DE 16.) A renewed scheduling order will be entered,

2

Although the instant motion to stay was filed only on behalf of Defendant
Aldrich, the later filed motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of all
Defendants in this action.
2

if necessary, after the Court’s disposition of the motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on July 22, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3