Rosebrough et al v. Bannum Place, Inc., d/b/a et al

Filing 43

ORDER on Motion Hearing. (Show Cause Response due by 5/13/2019,) (Fact Discovery due by 8/19/2019, Expert Discovery due by 11/14/2019, Dispositive Motion Cut-off RESET for 12/11/2019.) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CEAYA L. THOMAS.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-13492
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BANNUM PLACE, INC.,
Defendant.

DONALD ROSEBROUGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 18-cv-10222
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
BANNUM PLACE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION HEARING
On April 22, 2019, the Court held a motion hearing on pending motions in
both Ceaya Thomas v. Bannum Place, Inc., case number 17-cv-13492, and Donald
Rosebrough, et al. v. Bannum Place Inc., et al., case number 18-cv-10222. For the
reasons stated on the record at that motion hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows:

1

 Defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s February 6, 2019, discovery
order (ECF #45 in case number 17-cv-13492 and ECF #36 in case number 18cv-10222) are OVERRULED. All discovery that Magistrate Judge Patti
ordered Defendants to produce in his February 6, 2019, discovery order shall
be produced by the Defendants no later than May 20, 2019.
 Plaintiffs’ motions to extend the scheduling orders in both actions (ECF #51
in case number 17-cv-13492 and ECF #38 in case number 18- cv-10222) are
GRANTED. The new dates in both actions shall be as follows:
o Fact Discovery Cutoff:

August 19, 2019

o Rule 26(a)(2) Proponent Expert Disclosures:

September 17, 2019

o Rule 26(a)(2) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:

October 15, 2019

o Expert Discovery Cutoff:

November 14, 2019

o Dispositive Motion and Challenges to Experts:

December 11, 2019

o Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures:

February 14, 2020

 Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF #54 in case number 17-cv13492) is DENIED without prejudice.
 The parties shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than May 13, 2019,
why these two actions should not be consolidated for all purposes, including
trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). If any party favors

2

consolidation, the party should present argument why the cases should be
consolidated. These submissions shall not exceed 10 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 22, 2019

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 22, 2019, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3