DEVLON CHAMBERS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case No.: 2:14-CV-14461-VAR-RSW

Honorable Victoria Roberts

Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen

TRI-DIM FILTER CORPORATION,

Defendant.

/

Greg M. Liepshutz (P37573)

LEVINE BENJAMIN, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff

100 Galleria Officentre, Suite 411

Southfield, MI 48034

(248) 352-5700 fax (248) 352-1312

gliepshutzAlevinebenj amin.com 

Carolyn M. Jereck (P41748)

PLUNKETT COONEY

Attorney for Defendant

38505 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2000

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

(248) 594-6363

cjereck(&plunkettcooney.com 

/

JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN 

NOW COME the parties, through their respective counsel, and as their Joint

Discovery Plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3), as well as this Court's Notice of

FRCP 10(b) Status and Scheduling Conference dated January 27, 2015 [Dkt. # 6],

hereby state as follows:

1. Related Cases 

There are no pending or adjudicated lawsuits related to this case. Plaintiff has,

however, filed two previous related charges with the EEOC. The first, alleging race

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, remains

pending at this time. No right to sue letter has been issued. The second, alleging

retaliation for having filed the first, also claimed to be in violation of Title VII, was

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 30
dismissed based upon the EEOC' s inability to conclude that the information obtained

during the investigation phase established a violation of the statutes relied upon.

2. Jurisdiction 

Plaintiff alleges violations of Title VII, 42 USC § 12101, et seq., thereby vesting

this Court with federal question original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC

§ 1331. The Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims

related to ELCRA and/or WPA pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.

3. Factual Summary 

At all pertinent times, Plaintiff, an African American male was directly

employed by Malace International, a temporary staffing agency. In May of 2014,

Plaintiff was contracted to work with Defendant as a Process Supervisor at the

Chrysler Truck assembly plant located in Warren, MI. Plaintiffs assignment was

terminated at Defendant's request on August 21, 2014.

Plaintiff claims to have been subjected to adverse employment actions based

upon race throughout his employment. He also claims to have been retaliated against

for having filed an EEOC claim alleging racial discrimination prior to his discharge.

Defendant denies that it discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff in any way.

Instead, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs assignment with Tri-Dim ended due to

unacceptable job performance. Moreover, Defendant denies that it could have

retaliated against Plaintiff as claimed because Tri-Dim was not notified of Plaintiff s

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 31
initial EEOC charge until after Plaintiff's assignment had been terminated.

4. Legal Claims and Issues 

Plaintiff alleges violation of Title VII as well as the ELCRA based upon his

claims of racial discrimination and/or retaliation. Plaintiff also alleges retaliation in

violation of the WPA. Defendants deny that any state and/or federal laws were

violated.

From Defendant's perspective, the validity of Plaintiffs Title VII claim remains

directly at issue given the unresolved status of the underlying EEOC claim. Legal

issues pertaining to "joint employment' are expected to arise as well. Other than the

sufficiency of the evidence to support Plaintiff s remaining claims as well as

Defendant's stated defenses, there are no other dispositive legal issues known and/or

otherwise required to be addressed at this time.

5. Amendment of Pleadings 

Defendant has already tendered its defense to Plaintiff s direct employer, Malace

International. A response has not yet been received. If not received by the time of the

Rule 16(b) Status and Scheduling Conference and Plaintiff declines to add Malace

International as a direct party defendant, Tri-Dim requests that the scheduling order

issued also contain a deadline for leave to pursue a third party complaint against

Malace.

There are no other necessary amendments to the pleadings which are known to

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 32
the parties at this time. It is, however, the parties' understanding that it is the Court's

practice to grant leave to amend "freely when justice so requires" pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a), if necessitated at a later date.

6. Discovery 

a. Discovery Each Party Intends to Pursue

The parties intend to exchange interrogatories and requests to produce, to

subpoena relevant records, to depose the relevant witnesses (e.g., Plaintiff, the

defendant's decision makers, and key Chrysler as well as Malace employees familiar

with Plaintiff's performance and/or the terms of the Independent Contractor Service

Agreement entered into between Defendant and Plaintiff s direct

employer, Malace). The parties also intend to depose any experts identified or

necessitated throughout the initial discovery process.

b. Requested Discovery Cutoff

The parties request a discovery cutoff date of October 15, 2015 and confirm

that discovery need not be phased.

c. Anticipated Discovery Disputes

There are no anticipated discovery disputes known at this time.

d. Arrangements for Exchange of Initial Disclosures

Consistent with the Court's directive, the parties, through counsel, will have

exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 26(a)(1) prior to the Status

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 33
and Scheduling Conference.

e. Changes to Limits Upon Discovery

There are no known or anticipated changes to existing limits imposed by the

governing court rules as of this time. If either party seeks to exceed the number of

interrogatories allowable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), the number of depositions

allowable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i), or the duration of a deposition under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1), the parties will first endeavor to resolve the matter in good

faith prior to seeking leave of the Court.

f. Need for Protective Orders for Confidentiality

• None known at this time from Plaintiff s perspective.

• Defendant anticipates the possible need for entry of a protective order

pursuant to Fed Rule of Evidence 502(d) in the event Plaintiff seeks to

discover information deemed confidential and/or proprietary to

Defendant's underlying business interests or involved personnel.

g. Preservation of Discoverable Information

The parties do not presently anticipate any issues related to the preservation

of discoverable information.

7. Electronic Discovery 

The parties do not presently expect any issues related to the disclosure or

discovery of ESI to arise. Should they arise in the future, the parties will agree to

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 34
produce paper copies of electronically-produced information, unless the ESI is

voluminous in nature, in which case, the producing party may produce the ESI in PDF

format.

8. Settlement

Following completion of key discovery items as detailed above in Section 6, the

parties may be amenable to participation in an independent facilitative mediation

hearing in order to explore whether this is a matter that can be amicably resolved prior

to trial.

9. Consent to the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge preside over the trial of

this case but should routine discovery disputes arise, the parties do not object to the

assigned magistrate's involvement in helping to resolve these issues.

10. Trial

A jury trial has been demanded. The parties, through counsel, currently estimate

trial of this matter will last 3-5 days. The parties recommend that trial be scheduled to

go forward after January 30, 2016.

11. Miscellaneous Other Matters

The parties also recommend that:

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 35
• expert discovery, if applicable, be allowed to continue up to 30 days

before trial;

• all lay witnesses be disclosed by May 15, 2015;

• all expert witnesses be disclosed by May 15, 2015,i

• dispositive motions, if applicable, are to be filed within 30 days of the

close of discovery and/or on or before November 15, 2015;

• a final pretrial be held after January 3, 2016 and/or within 20 days

following the Court's decision on any dispositive motions pending as of

this date.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Greg M. Liepshutz 

Greg M. Liepshutz (P37573)

LEVINE BENJAMIN, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff

100 Galleria Officentre, Suite 411

Southfield, MI 48034

(248) 352-5700 fax (248) 352-1312

gliepshutzglevinebenjamin.com 

Dated: February 13, 2015

By: /s/ Carolyn M. Jereck 

Carolyn M. Jereck (P41748)

PLUNKETT COONEY

Attorneys for Defendants

38505 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2000

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

(248) 594-6363 fax (248) 901-4040

cjereckgplunkettcooney.com 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to MCR 2.107(D) the undersigned certifies that a copy of the

foregoing document was served upon the attorneys of record of all

parties to the above cause at their respective business addresses as

disclosed by the pleadings of record herein on February 16, 2015, by

U.S. Mail Hand Delivery

Express Mail Overnight Mail

Facsimile M Electronic Filing

Further, I declare under penalty of perjury that the statement above is

true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

/s/Stephanie L. Intermaggio

Stephanie L. Intermaggio

Open.11877.50012.15098485-1

2:14-cv-14461-VAR-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 02/16/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 36