Darwich v. Dearborn Police Department et al, No. 2:2010cv14073 - Document 26 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 19 Motion to Order Defendants file the Wayne County Record; denying 21 Motion for Wayne County Record and STAYING Discovery pending Issuance of a Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag) Modified on 5/12/2011 (LWag).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALI HUSSEIN DARWICH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 10-14073 CITY OF DEARBORN (DEARBORN POLICE DEPARTMENT), et al., Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S TWO MOTIONS FOR WAYNE COUNTY RECORD AND STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING ISSUANCE OF A SCHEDULING ORDER Before the court are two motions filed pro se by Plaintiff Ali Darwich requesting that the court order Defendants to file [the Wayne County] record before and after [Darwich s] kidnapped and tourtrue. (2/3/11 Mot. at 2.) The court interprets these motions as requests for discovery. No scheduling order has yet been issued in this case and the court has recently ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (5/10/11 Order.) Until the pleadings are finalized, and a scheduling order issued, discovery is premature. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The court will therefore stay all discovery until further order of the court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s two motions for Defendants to file the Wayne County Record [Dkt. ## 19 & 21] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that court-supervised discovery in this matter is STAYED pending issuance of a scheduling order after the pleadings are finalized. S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 12, 2011 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, May 12, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\10-14073.DARWICH.Motions.WayneCountyRecords.chd.wpd 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.