Bennett v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 15-cv-14465. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20200106b97
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On January 6, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss Plaintiff's request for additional discovery before responding to Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 127, 129). For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants David Wright, Isaac Alexis, and Quinn LaFleur ("Corizon Defendants") shall be made available for depositions and shal
Summary: ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On January 6, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss Plaintiff's request for additional discovery before responding to Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 127, 129). For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants David Wright, Isaac Alexis, and Quinn LaFleur ("Corizon Defendants") shall be made available for depositions and shall..
More
ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
On January 6, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss Plaintiff's request for additional discovery before responding to Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 127, 129).
For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants David Wright, Isaac Alexis, and Quinn LaFleur ("Corizon Defendants") shall be made available for depositions and shall be deposed by Plaintiff by not later than FEBRUARY 21, 2020. Plaintiff's depositions of the Corizon Defendants shall be limited to the following topics:
a. The Corizon Defendants' actual or constructive notice of Plaintiff's claims;
b. The factual contentions in the Corizon Defendants' affidavits in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 127); and
c. The legal relationship between the Corizon Defendants and the Michigan Department of Corrections (the "MDOC").
2. Plaintiff shall file a response to the Corizon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 127) by not later than TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS after the last of the Corizon Defendants has been deposed.
3. With respect to the MDOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 129), Plaintiff shall file a Rule 56(d) affidavit by not later than January 13, 2020. The affidavit shall specifically identify the discovery that Plaintiff believes he needs to complete in order to respond to the MDOC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 129) and shall explain in detail why Plaintiff believes such discovery is necessary. The MDOC Defendants shall have ONE WEEK to respond to Plaintiff's affidavit. Once the Court reviews the Rule 56(d) affidavit and the response, the Court will determine whether to allow Plaintiff to take discovery before responding to the motion or to require Plaintiff to respond to the motion without additional discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
