Opinion
22-12830
11-01-2024
ARNOLD HENRY, Plaintiff, v. K. MIHM, et al., Defendants.
HONORABLE ROBERT J. WHITE JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING ORAL MOTIONS TO ADJOURN THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
During a status conference held on October 31, 2024, the parties agreed to adjourn the scheduling order. The Court extends the scheduling order as follows:
DISCOVERY CUTOFF:
February 1, 2025
DISPOSITIVE MOTION CUTOFF:
March 6, 2025
Plaintiff may move for leave to amend plaintiff's complaint by November 7, 2024, and may file a motion related to the preservation of the video on the date of the incident by December 31, 2024.
Defendants must all produce all documents about any PREA grievances against defendant Mihm, but with prisoner name, and prisoner and employee numbers redacted, and subject to the protective order already in place. See ECF No. 68.
Finally, the parties must meet and confer about whether they seek alternative dispute resolution (ADR), what type of ADR they seek, and when in the schedule they want the ADR to take place. They must notify the Court about their decisions by November 30, 2024.
IT IS ORDERED.
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.