UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH MILTON, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-13576 

 v. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

 

BOTTLING GROUP, LLC, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXTEND DISCOVERY [12] 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph Milton’s Motion to Compel and 

Extend Discovery Thirty (30) Days. (Docket no. 12.) Defendant Bottling Group, LLC 

responded to Plaintiff’s Motion (docket no. 13), and the parties subsequently filed a Joint 

Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues (docket no. 18). The Motion has been referred to 

the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no. 14.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings and 

dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The 

Court is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

 Plaintiff initially filed this employment discrimination action in the Genesee County 

Circuit Court on or about August 4, 2014. (Docket no. 1 at 9-18.) On September 16, 2014, 

Defendant removed the matter to this Court. (Docket no. 1.) District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow 

issued a Scheduling Order on October 30, 2014, which unequivocally states, in relevant part, that 

all discovery must be completed by April 24, 2015; the Court will order no discovery to take 

2:14-cv-13576-AJT-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 717
2 

place after that date; and all discovery motions must be filed by March 24, 2015. (Docket no. 7 

at 1.) 

Soon thereafter, counsel for the parties discussed availability and arranged for the 

depositions of Plaintiff and four witnesses, including Mike Summit, “a key witness and decisionmaker in Plaintiff’s termination.” (Docket no. 12 at 2; docket no. 13 at 2.) The depositions were 

noticed and scheduled for the week of January 26, 2015; however, Plaintiff canceled the 

depositions on January 23, 2015. (Docket no. 13 at 2.) Defendant’s counsel rescheduled and 

took Plaintiff’s deposition on February 20, 2015. (Id.) On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff re-noticed 

the depositions of Mr. Summit and the three other witnesses for April 23, 2015. (Docket no. 12 

at 2.) The next day, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel via email that Mr. Summit 

would not be available for a deposition on April 23, 2015, due to a pre-scheduled out-of-state 

family vacation. (Id.; docket no. 12-2; docket no. 13 at 3.) It is unclear whether the parties 

discussed alternative dates for Mr. Summit’s deposition. The other three depositions went 

forward on April 23, 2015 as noticed. (Docket no. 13 at 3.) 

According to Plaintiff, Defendant has indicated that it is unwilling to stipulate to the 

taking of Mr. Summit’s deposition after the close of discovery or to the extension of the 

discovery deadline so that Plaintiff may take Mr. Summit’s deposition. (Docket no. 12 at 2.) 

Plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant Motion on April 24, 2015, seeking a court order compelling 

the deposition of Mr. Summit and a thirty-day extension of the discovery deadline to permit 

Plaintiff to take Mr. Summit’s deposition.1 (Docket no. 12 at 2-3.) Defendant filed a response in 

opposition to the Motion, arguing that it should be denied as untimely because it was filed on the 

discovery cut-off date. (Docket no. 13 at 5.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff had earlier 

 

1

 Plaintiff also raises an issue regarding Defendant’s production of documents in the instant Motion; however, the 

parties indicate in their Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues that this issue has been resolved. 

(Docket no. 12 at 3-4; docket no. 18 at 2.) 

2:14-cv-13576-AJT-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 718
3 

opportunities to depose Mr. Summit but chose not to do so, and he should not be permitted 

additional time to take the deposition outside of the discovery period merely because he waited 

until the last moment to schedule the deposition. (Id. at 5-6.) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) provides that “[a] party who wants to depose a 

person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party.” The Court 

finds that Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Mr. Summit before the close of discovery 

and is entitled to proceed with the deposition. The fact that the deposition could not be held 

before discovery closed is through no fault of Plaintiff. The Court will, therefore, order 

Defendant to produce Mr. Summit for a deposition at a mutually convenient time and place 

within twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order. The Court will not modify the 

Scheduling Order to extend discovery by thirty days. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Extend 

Discovery Thirty (30) Days [12] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 

a. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Mike Summit is GRANTED. 

Defendant will produce Mr. Summit for a deposition at a mutually convenient time 

and place within twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order; 

b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Thirty (30) Days is DENIED; and 

c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents is DENIED as moot. 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date 

of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2:14-cv-13576-AJT-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 719
4 

Dated: September 22, 2015 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon counsel of record 

on this date. 

Dated: September 22_, 2015 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager

2:14-cv-13576-AJT-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 720