Opinion
23-12152
08-28-2024
KANDICE ASHBY, Plaintiff, v. A&J BROTHERS, INC., et al., Defendants.
HONORABLE LINDA V. PARKER JUDGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 11)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Kandice Ashby moves to compel discovery responses, initial disclosures, and a deposition from Defendant A&J Brothers, Inc. ECF No. 11. The Honorable Linda V. Parker referred this motion to the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 14. The Court finds that Ashby's motion was filed too late.
Under the amended scheduling order, the discovery cut-off was July 12, 2024. ECF No. 10, PageID.64. Ashby filed her motion over a month after discovery closed and did not explain why the motion was not filed earlier. ECF No. 11.“Absent express permission from the court, parties should assume that the discovery deadline is the end of discovery.” Boone v. Stieve, 642 F.Supp.3d 597, 603 (E.D. Mich. 2022). Thus, courts may deny discovery motions filed after the discovery deadline. See Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 642 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting that “courts have denied discovery motions filed after the close of discovery” and that “[r]eviewing courts have also affirmed the denial of untimely motions to compel”).
Ashby also violated this Court's Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Rule 19(b)(3), which says, “Each exhibit must then be filed and identified as a separate attachment to the paper and must be labeled in the electronic record with an exhibit identifier and brief narrative description.” Instead of filing the exhibits as required by this rule, Ashby attached one document that would require the Court to scroll through 90 pages.
The Court thus DENIES Ashby's motion to compel (ECF No. 11).
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “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. LR 72.2.