Guy v. Absopure Water Company, No. 2:2020cv12734 - Document 54 (E.D. Mich. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER (1) Granting In Part and Denying Part Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Discovery (Dkt. 49 ) and (2) Amending the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 23 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (KSan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Guy v. Absopure Water Company Doc. 54 Case 2:20-cv-12734-MAG-EAS ECF No. 54, PageID.833 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JUSTIN GUY, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-12734 Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith vs. ABSOPURE WATER COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________/ OPINION & ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Dkt. 49) AND (2) AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER (Dkt. 23) Plaintiff Justin Guy has filed a motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 49). Guy requests a stay or, alternatively, a three-month extension of the discovery deadline and all other deadlines. Guy argues that a stay or extension is necessary to allow sufficient time for the discovery dispute resolution process with the special discovery master, who was appointed to help the parties resolve their outstanding discovery disputes. The parties discussed Guy’s motion with the special discovery master, and the special discovery master then wrote an interim report setting forth her views on the issues raised by the motion. See Interim Report (Dkt. 51). Following the special discovery master’s interim report, the Court conferred with the special discovery master to better understand the parties’ positions. The Court then issued an order informing the parties that it believed that an extension of discovery until March 1, 2022 and an extension of the dispositive motion deadline to March 29, 2022 would be appropriate. 12/8/21 Order (Dkt. 52). The Court gave the parties an opportunity to file memoranda regarding their views on the Court’s proposal. Id. at 1–2. Guy filed a memorandum (Dkt. 53), asking the Court to enter a stay until the Court resolves Guy’s forthcoming motion to compel. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-12734-MAG-EAS ECF No. 54, PageID.834 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 2 Due to the parties’ demonstrated difficulty in judiciously resolving their discovery disputes, deadlines are necessary to properly incentivize the parties to timely complete discovery. Thus, a stay would be inappropriate. However, the Court will extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by two and a half months, which will give the parties sufficient time to work with the special discovery master to resolve their outstanding discovery disputes. Accordingly, Guy’s motion (Dkt. 49) is granted in part and denied in part, and the deadlines contained in the scheduling order (Dkt. 23) are amended as follows: EVENT DEADLINE Discovery as to conditional certification issues and as to the individual Plaintiff’s claims as it stands at the present time March 1, 2022 Discovery as to MCA exemption March 1, 2022 Motions for Summary Judgment on the Motor March 29, 2022 Carrier Act (MCA) exemption Plaintiff’s Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action March 29, 2022 Joint Status Report 10 days after ruling on motions for summary judgment and motion to conditionally certify class action All Other Motions, Including Motions in Limine TBD Final Settlement Conference TBD Joint Final Pretrial Order TBD Final Pretrial Conference TBD Trial - Jury TBD SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2021 Detroit, Michigan s/Mark A. Goldsmith MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge 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.
