Opinion
23-cv-11527
08-15-2024
MARK STANALAJCZO, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON PERRY, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (ECF NO. 30)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Mark Stanalajczo moves to determine the sufficiency of defendants' responses to requests for admission. ECF No. 30. The Honorable Matthew F. Leitman referred the motion to the undersigned for a hearing and determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 31.
The Court held a motion hearing on August 15, 2024. For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, Stanalajczo's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court relied on opinions that include Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 350, 36768 (D. Md. 2012); and Ranke v. Federspiel, No. 2:23-CV-11300, 2024 WL 3706598, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2024). By August 26, 2024, defendants must provide revised responses to Request for Admission Nos. 16, 40, 41, 42, 60, and 65.
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.