Opinion
24-51122
10-09-2024
BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC., Defendant.
LINDA V. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS (ECF No. 1)
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 3, 2024, in 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI, Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. Solstice Benefits, Inc., the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel production of third-party defendants (22-cv-10830 ECF No. 92) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to take additional third party depositions (22-cv-10830 ECF No. 93). (22-cv-10830 ECF No. 112). In doing so, the Court stated that Plaintiff's subpoenas are untimely and violate the discovery cutoff. (Id.). The Court also declined to extend discovery deadlines to accommodate the subpoenas. (Id.).
Here, Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc., filed a motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoenas. (ECF No. 1). Because the subpoenas have already been deemed untimely, this motion is MOOT.
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.