Opinion
19-cv-11531
11-04-2024
LATAUSHA SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WARREN, et al., Defendants.
LAURIE J. MICHELSON, J.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MACOMB COUNTY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 69)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Macomb County moves for a protective order relieving it of any obligation to answer Plaintiff Latausha Simmons's written discovery requests. ECF No. 69. Simmons has not responded to the motion. The Honorable Laurie J. Michelson referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 53.
“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). Since a party must respond or object to discovery requests within 30 days of being served, “a party must serve his discovery requests at least thirty days before the court-ordered discovery deadline to be timely and to necessitate a response.” Appalachian Reg'l Healthcare, Inc. v. U.S. Nursing Corp., No. 714CV00122KKCEBA, 2017 WL 9690401, at *5-6 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 1, 2017)). And the scheduling order stated, “Discovery requests must be made in sufficient time for the opposing party or parties to respond before the discovery cutoff and/or for a motion to compel to be filed before the discovery cutoff.” ECF No. 55.
Simmons mailed her discovery requests on September 18, 2024. ECF No. 69-1, PageID.1760. With a discovery cutoff of September 4, 2024, Simmons's requests were served too late. See ECF No. 55. Nor did Simmons move for an extension of discovery. That the discovery requests were untimely is enough to relieve the County from its obligation to respond. See Anderson v. Furst, No. 2:17-12676, 2019 WL 2284731, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2019). Thus, the Court GRANTS its motion for a protective order.
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.