UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ERIC SANTIFER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

INERGY AUTOMOTIVE 

SYSTEMS, LLC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 5:15-cv-11486 

District Judge Judith E. Levy 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 28) AND 

CANCELLING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

I. Background 

 Plaintiff, Eric Santifer, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, 

filed a document he titled “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion to Compel the Court to 

Continue Claims/Complaints Against the Defendants” on May 31, 2016. (DE 28.)1

 

In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to provide responses to 

his interrogatories and documents responsive to his requests for production of 

documents. In addition, Plaintiff provides a brief description of his case and notes 

that because Defendants “failed to comply with Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and 

 

1

 Despite the title, the Court construed the document as a motion to compel and not 

as a dispositive motion. (DE 41.) 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 565
2 

Production of Document Requests,” they should be barred from introducing certain 

evidence into the record. (Id. at 4.) 

 On June 1, 2016, the Court noticed a hearing on this matter for July 26, 2016 

at 10:00 a.m. (DE 31.) The notice was served on Plaintiff at his private address in 

Ypsilanti, Michigan. On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing. 

He did not attempt to contact the Court, either by telephone or by filing any motion 

or notice on the docket. The Court tried to reach Plaintiff, at the phone number 

listed on the docket, at around 10:15 a.m. Plaintiff did not answer and his phone 

did not allow my case manager to leave a voicemail. The hearing began at 10:26 

a.m., with only Defendant’s counsel in attendance. 

 At 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff arrived for the hearing. He explained that, although 

he received the notice for the hearing on the instant motion, which was scheduled 

for 10:00 a.m. (DE 31), he also received a notice for a hearing on a second motion, 

which was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. (DE 38.) However, in an order issued on July 

13, 2016, the Court already denied the motion to strike (DE 32) on the papers, 

cancelled the 11:00 a.m. hearing for that motion only, and specifically stated that it 

would “hear Plaintiff’s motion to compel . . . as planned on July 26, 2016 at 10:00 

a.m.” (DE 41 at 3.) After today’s hearing had already concluded in his absence, 

Plaintiff acknowledged his misunderstanding and updated the Clerk’s Office with 

his correct address and phone number. 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 566
3 

II. Analysis 

 A. Motion to Compel 

 I conclude that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely filed. Discovery in 

this matter closed on February 9, 2016, and neither party has requested an 

extension of that deadline. In my initial scheduling order, I stated the following 

with respect to discovery deadlines: “This Court will not order discovery to take 

place after the discovery cutoff date.” (DE 18.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion to 

compel on May 31, 2016, the day after the dispositive motion cut-off. (DE 27 and 

28.) 

 Although motions to compel do not need to be filed before the discovery 

cut-off date, the Court has discretion to deny such motions as untimely. This 

district has repeatedly noted that “there is no authority that automatically precludes 

the filing of a motion to compel discovery after the close of discovery . . . .” 

Suntrust Bank v. Blue Water Fiber, L.P., 210 F.R.D. 196, 199 (E.D. Mich. 2002); 

Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raider-Dennis Agency, Inc., No. 07-cv-15324, 2010 WL 

4901181, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2010) (ruling on the merits of a motion to 

compel filed after the close of discovery after taking “the circumstances of the 

discovery and other matters into consideration” and finding the timeliness issue 

waived). 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 567
4 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 “provides no deadline for filing of a 

motion to compel.” Suntrust, 210 F.R.D at 201 n. 5. Instead, such motions are 

analyzed under the good cause standard outlined in Rule 16(b). Id. Here, Plaintiff 

has not shown good cause for filing his motion nearly four months after the close 

of discovery and one day after the dispositive motion deadline. Defendant timely 

and cooperatively responded to the discovery requests at issue on March 3, 2016 

and supplemented those responses on March 22, 2016, meaning that Plaintiff was 

aware of any alleged discovery issues, at the latest, over two months before he 

filed his motion. See Ginett v. Federal Express, 166 F.3d 1213 (6th Cir. 1998) 

(affirming the district court’s denial of a motion to compel as untimely where the 

motion was filed two months after the close of discovery, even though the moving 

party had all of the information it needed to timely file the discovery motion); 

Choate v. Nat’l RR Passenger Corp., 132 F. Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Mich. 2001) 

(finding a motion to compel untimely where it was filed 3.5 months after the close 

of discovery and the moving party failed to promptly enforce its discovery rights); 

VCA Clinipath Labs, Inc. v. Progressive Pet Animal Hosps., P.C., No. 11-cv12237, 2013 WL 140916, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2013) (emphasizing that a 

motion to compel was untimely filed nine months after the close of discovery 

where the plaintiff “knew it sought the emails in the instant motion as early as 

February 2012.”). 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 568
5 

Moreover, Plaintiff makes no showing that he is unable to respond to the 

pending motion for summary judgment without the requested discovery, and in 

fact has responded to it, with no mention of the allegedly missing information. 

(DE 37.) 

 Finally, Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with the Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 37.2, which states: 

Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, 

shall include, in the motion itself or in an attached memorandum, a 

verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, 

and objection which is the subject of the motion or a copy of the 

actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion. 

Plaintiff did not include a verbatim recitation of each discovery request at issue or 

attach a copy of the actual discovery document. Plaintiff’s vague references to the 

discovery requests he seeks are insufficient to alert the Court to the alleged 

insufficiency of Defendant’s responses. 

 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is DENIED. (DE 28.) 

B. Motion in Limine 

 To the extent any portion of Plaintiff’s motion can be construed as a motion 

in limine to exclude evidence, such a motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE as premature. In the interest of judicial economy such issues are 

better dealt with in the event this case survives summary judgment and proceeds to 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 569
6 

trial. Further, any attempt to bring such a motion is not properly filed and is vague 

as to form. Should Plaintiff file any such motion in the future, it must be specific 

and succinct as to exactly what he seeks to exclude, the basis of the exclusion, and 

any legal arguments in support, with each item for which exclusion is sought to be 

separately introduced by numbered, bold-faced subheadings, and with all motion 

papers and briefs to be double-spaced. 

C. Final Pretrial Conference 

 Finally, this matter is set for a final pretrial conference on August 3, 2016 at 

10:00 a.m. That conference is hereby CANCELLED and will be rescheduled, if 

necessary, after the disposition of Defendant’s pending motion for summary 

judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 27, 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 July 27, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 46 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 570