Opinion
22-10067
08-26-2024
JUDY FLUMMERFELT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF TAYLOR, et al., Defendants.
F. Kay Behm United States District Judge
ORDER FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
Both sets of Defendants moved for a protective order precluding depositions duces tecum. (ECF Nos. 145, 146). The deposition notices were served on August 19, 2024. Discovery closes on August 30, 2024. (ECF No. 115). Because the close of discovery is fast approaching and given the date on which Plaintiffs served the notices, the Court requires an expedited response from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their response briefs by the close of business Thursday, August 29th. The Court will conduct a telephonic status conference in the morning of August 30, 2024, to discuss the disputes. A separate notice for the status conference will be issued concurrently.
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 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 effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.