UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TECHNICAL TRAINING, INC. d/b/a

TTI GLOBAL AND TTI GLOBAL 

WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, CASE NO. 15-cv-11357

 HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 

MICHIGAN,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

AND PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DEPOSITIONS (DOC. #25)

Plaintiff filed this action seeking to recover hidden fees in an ERISA-governed

benefit plan. This case is one of hundreds of similarly filed cases in this district.

Now before the court is defendant’s motion seeking from the court: 

(1) an order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference before

Magistrate Judge David Grand, the magistrate judge who has handled settlement

conferences in many of these cases; 

(2) a stay of depositions pending the conclusion of a settlement conference; 

(3) a ninety-day extension of the court’s scheduling order (which the parties agree

should be done); and

(4) bifurcation of the issues of liability and prejudgment interest and staying all

proceedings related to the prejudgment interest pending a judgment on the merits as to

liability.

-1-

2:15-cv-11357-GCS-APP Doc # 32 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 610
(Doc. #25). For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion will be denied in part and

granted in part. Specifically, the motion will be denied in its entirety except as it relates to

the parties’ agreement to extend the court’s scheduling order by ninety days.

I. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

First, defendant asks the court to order a settlement conference because the parties

“would benefit from the Court’s assistance in facilitating settlement.” (Doc. #25 at 3). 

Without explaining in detail, defendant contends that “the parties have reached critical

impasse on several issues — issues that should not prevent the parties from reaching

settlement.” (Id.).

Plaintiff responds that defendant has not been diligent in its efforts to settle the case,

and the parties are at an impasse such that a settlement conference would not be

beneficial. Indeed, plaintiff contends that “[a] settlement conference at this juncture will not

resolve the impasse, nor will it make up for discovery time lost to purported settlement

negotiations. Only discovery can resolve the ‘factual disconnect.’” (Doc. #28 at 9).

The court agrees with plaintiff that a settlement conference at this juncture is

unwarranted. If the parties mutually agree that they may benefit from a settlement

conference after further discovery, the court will entertain a renewed request to schedule

a settlement conference before a magistrate judge.

II. STAY OF DISCOVERY

Second, defendant seeks a protective order staying and precluding depositions until

the parties have participated in a settlement conference. Having determined that a

settlement conference will not be scheduled at this juncture, defendant’s request for a stay

of depositions is moot.

-2-

2:15-cv-11357-GCS-APP Doc # 32 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 611
III. EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Third, defendant asks the court for a ninety-day extension of the scheduling order. 

Plaintiff, in a motion to compel pending before the magistrate judge, also requests a ninetyday extension of the scheduling order. Thus, the court will grant the parties’ joint request

for a ninety-day extension. The court shall issue a new scheduling order as follows:

Discovery cutoff: 3/30/16

Dispositive Motions due: 5/2/16

Final Pretrial Order due: 8/1/16

Final Pretrial Conference: 8/15/16 at 10:00 a.m.

Trial Date: 8/22/16 at 9:00 a.m.

IV. BIFURCATION OF LIABILITY AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Finally, defendant seeks a bifurcation of liability from the issues of prejudgment

interest and a stay of all proceedings relating to prejudgment interest pending a judgment

on the merits. The majority of courts in this district have not bifurcated the issues in

substantially similar cases. Following the majority of courts in this district, this court sees

no benefit from bifurcating the issues.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, defendant’s motion is DENIED IN PART and

GRANTED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

2:15-cv-11357-GCS-APP Doc # 32 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 612
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

January 4, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-4-

2:15-cv-11357-GCS-APP Doc # 32 Filed 01/04/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 613