ORDER (1) ADDRESSING SEVERAL MOTIONS (DEs 30, 34, 42, 48), (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO STRIKE CERTAIN ITEMS (DEs 41-4, 43 & 45), (3) SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE WITH CONTENT REQUIREMENTS, and (4) TEMPORARILY STAYING DISCOVERY

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Walter Lee Jones-Bey is currently incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.1 The allegations underlying his most recent amended complaint concern difficulties he had following the April 2017 purchase and receipt of a JP5mini Tablet. (DE 23 ¶¶ 11-32.) Plaintiff names four Defendants and sets forth eight causes of action based upon the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, Michigan's Uniform Commercial Code, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and infliction of mental distress. (DE 23 ¶¶ 33-77.) Plaintiff appears to offer both federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and diversity of citizenship (28 U.S.C. § 1332) as bases for jurisdiction. (See DE 23 at 3 ¶¶ 9-10.)

Judge Cohn has referred this case to me for all pretrial matters. Currently, there are four matters pending before the Court:

On February 5, 2019, the Court held a hearing, at which Plaintiff participated by videoconference and defense counsel (attorney Patricia A. Stamler) appeared in person.

Upon consideration, and consistent with the Court's statements on the record, all of which are incorporated herein by reference:

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff's sur-reply (DE 43) and Plaintiff's affidavit (DE 45), as well as the affidavit of Gregory Campbell (DE 41-4). In addition, the parties will abide by the following briefing schedule and directives:

The Court will strictly enforce these pages limits. Plaintiff will not be permitted to file a sur-reply without prior leave of Court, and Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court discourages sur-replies and is not likely to permit such a filing. Moreover, the parties' attention is drawn to the E.D. Mich. Local Rules, particularly E.D. Mich. Local Rules 5.1 ("Filing of Papers") and 7.1 ("Motion Practice"), and to my Practice Guidelines, each of which may be accessed at www.mied.uscourts.gov. In addition, the Court has extended the briefing page limits as indicated above, as it requests case law — preferably binding — on the following issues: (1) does the Sixth Circuit take the same approach to a motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction as did the courts in McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta-Richmond Cty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007) and Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 15 F.Supp.3d 1161, 1165 (M.D. Ala. 2014), aff'd, 801 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015), and, is it within the Court's discretion whether to decide the question on the pleadings alone, i.e., a facial attack versus a factual attack; (2) the enforceability of an arbitration provision that is embedded within an electronic device and/or software; (3) use of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act with less than $50,000 in damages for acquiring federal question jurisdiction where the state law claims do not meet the $75,000 subject matter jurisdiction threshold; and, (4) whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover emotional distress damages under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act or any of his other state law claims.

Finally, discovery is stayed until and unless Defendants fail to timely answer or file the above-described motion. If Defendants opt to file an answer in lieu of timely filing the above-described motion, then the stay of discovery will automatically lift, and the discovery deadline will be Monday, July 22, 2019. If Defendants timely file the above-described motion, then discovery is further stayed, and the stay will automatically lift if this case survives the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.