UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRADLEY A. ARNDT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-11108 

v. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALLOW 

COMPLETION OF PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION (DE 41)

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s motion to 

allow completion of Plaintiff’s deposition (DE 41), Plaintiff’s response in 

opposition (DE 47), and Defendant’s reply (DE 50). In its motion, Defendant 

contends that it is unable to complete Plaintiff’s deposition until it receives his 

complete military records. Defendant indicates that it did not receive Plaintiff’s 

authorization for the release of his military records until January 15, 2016, and 

therefore those records were not available for his deposition scheduled on January 

28, 2016, which did not proceed. Defendant notes, however, that it does not need 

Plaintiff’s military records in order to depose him effectively for summary 

judgment purposes, as opposed to trial preparation purposes. As a result, 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 53 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1325
2

Defendant asks the Court to order that either 1) Plaintiff appear at two depositions, 

the first of which would be completed prior to the dispositive motion deadline of 

February 29, 2016 with the second to be completed after the military records are 

received; or 2) to appear at one deposition after the military records are received 

with an extended dispositive motion deadline. 

 Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that it would be prejudicial to require 

him to travel from Tennessee to Michigan several more times to attend depositions. 

He further argues that Defendant has refused his offer of providing the records 

himself, thereby revealing that such a request is merely an attempt to delay his 

deposition. 

 This matter came before me for a hearing on February 18, 2016. After 

hearing arguments on both sides, I conclude that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by 

appearing one time for the completion of his deposition in lieu of the appearance 

he was not required to make on January 28, 2016. Accordingly, Defendant’s 

motion is GRANTED, for the reasons stated on the record (DE 41). 

 Specifically, I hereby ORDER that Defendant complete Plaintiff’s 

deposition, with or without the military records, ON OR BEFORE APRIL 18, 

2016. During the hearing, Defendant indicated that it could receive the records 

from the U.S. military as early as mid-March, but did not have a date certain for 

receiving the documents. Defendant’s counsel also clarified that, if given the 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 53 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1326
3

choice between deposing Plaintiff with the military records after the dispositive 

motion deadline or deposing Plaintiff without the military records before the 

dispositive motion deadline, it would be more important to complete the deposition 

prior to the dispositive motion deadline. Based on counsel’s representation, the 

uncertainty of how long it will take the military to produce the records, and in the 

interest of effective case management, I decline to leave this timeline open-ended. 

 Further, Plaintiff’s deposition shall occur at a place of the parties’ mutual 

choosing. If the parties cannot choose a mutually agreeable location, the 

deposition shall occur at the Theodore Levin Courthouse. 

 In addition, Plaintiff has already been deposed for approximately six hours. 

At a previous hearing, the parties stipulated to allow a reasonable extension in 

excess of the seven-hour time-limit provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30. (DE 36.) As a result of the motion practice in this case, however, I hereby 

ORDER that Plaintiff’s additional deposition not exceed 1.5 hours if the military 

records have not been received and 2.5 hours if the military records have been 

received prior to the deposition. 

 As a result of the above conclusions, I find good cause exists for extending 

the dispositive motion deadline. See, e.g., Vasudeva Mahavisno v. Compendia 

Bioscience, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-12207, 2015 WL 5698519, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 

29, 2015) (finding good cause to extend the deadline). Accordingly, the 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 53 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1327
4

dispositive motion deadline shall be extended from February 29, 2016 to MAY 2, 

2016. 

 Finally, nothing in this order should be construed as a general re-opening of 

discovery, except with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition as stated herein. Should 

any additional issues arise, the parties are invited to schedule a conference call 

with my chambers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 19, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 53 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1328