Opinion
2:19 CV 44
07-15-2022
ASHLY RODRIGUEZ, and MADELLINE MELENDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. JUDA PARKS, and THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES T. MOODY, DISTRICT COURT
Madelline Melendez, one of the plaintiffs in this employment dispute, opposes the City of East Chicago's motion for summary judgment on her claims. (DE ## 55, 58.) Though the discovery period has concluded and the motion is fully briefed, Melendez moved to reopen discovery to uncover evidence related to whether one of defendant's other employees, who was terminated at the same time as Melendez, was later rehired. (DE # 66.) According to Melendez, this would constitute evidence of pretext. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing the request was too late and irrelevant.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this court referred Melendez's motion to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin. (DE # 71.) Magistrate Judge Martin held a hearing (DE # 76) and issued a Report and Recommendation (DE # 79), proposing that this court reject the request to formally reopen discovery, because all parties seemed to agree the employee in question has been rehired. Magistrate Judge Martin also recommended that this court grant the motion in part by allowing additional briefing on the issue by both sides.
Defendant objected (DE # 80), but the objection contains no actual challenges to Magistrate Judge Martin's reasoning or findings. Rather, defendant argues that it should ultimately prevail on the merits (a matter for a finder of fact) and reiterates that Melendez should have made the request to reopen discovery earlier (which is irrelevant as Magistrate Judge Martin did not recommend that discovery be reopened).
In short, defendant has articulated no actual objection to Magistrate Judge Martin's Report and Recommendation, and this court can locate no error independently. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (DE # 79), Melendez's motion is GRANTED, for relief different than requested (DE # 66), and the court ORDERS the parties to file short supplemental briefs explaining the relevance of the rehire to the other arguments in the briefing on the motion for summary judgment by August 15, 2022.
SO ORDERED.