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 IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (DE 23) AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S COUNTER-MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 25) 

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

extend the discovery deadline and for leave to conduct additional depositions (DE 

23), Defendant’s response and counter-motion for protective order (DE 25), 

Plaintiff’s reply and response to counter-motion (DE 29), Defendant’s reply in 

support of its counter motion (DE 31), and the parties’ joint statement of resolved 

and unresolved issues (DE 32). In her motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to take three 

depositions more than the ten allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30(a)(2) (and Defendant wishes to extend the duration of Plaintiff’s deposition 

longer than the seven hours provided in Rule 30(d)(1)). At issue in Plaintiff’s 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 36 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 786
2

motion are the depositions of Wendy Burkett, Maria Conliffe, Les Harris, Kathy 

Shatrau, Deborah Fehner, and William Heckman. In addition, Plaintiff asks the 

Court to extend the discovery deadline to account for the additional depositions. 

 This matter came before me on a hearing on December 22, 2015. Prior to 

the hearing, the parties stipulated to the following, all of which was placed on the 

record and adopted as part of the relief granted herein: 

1. The discovery deadline will be extended to January 29, 2016. 

2. Any additional depositions will be taken at the Courthouse. The parties will 

proceed in the usual manner for scheduling those depositions and will 

contact the Undersigned’s chambers if additional space is needed. 

3. The depositions will be limited to two hours. 

4. Defendant will be entitled, to a reasonable degree, to exceed the seven-hour 

time limitation for the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant 

agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to the depositions of Burkett and Conliffe. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART. Likewise, Defendant’s motion for protective 

order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court 

orders the following (in addition to the stipulations above): 

1. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to take the depositions of Harris, Shatreau, and 

Heckman, his motion is granted. The depositions shall be limited to two 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 36 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 787
3

hours of testimony per deponent. Shatreau’s deposition will be conducted 

via telephone. 

2. Plaintiff’s request to take the deposition of Fehner is denied. However, by 

January 15, 2016, Ford will provide to Plaintiff any contact information in 

its possession for Fehner and/or the contact information for her last known 

employer, since she is no longer in Ford’s employment records and may 

have been classified as a contractor. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is available to conduct the depositions on January 14, 15, 

18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2016. ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 6, 

2016, Defendant will choose two of those dates for the completion of 

depositions. 

4. The respective depositions will begin at 10:00 AM, 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM, 

with each deposition, respectively, to end at 12:00 PM, 3:00 PM and 5:00 

PM. Plaintiff is entitled to two hours of testimony from each deponent, so 

any breaks must be factored into the schedule and there must be a lunch 

break of approximately one hour. These depositions should take no more 

than two days to complete, with three depositions scheduled for each day. 

5. Both parties have requested that the Court award attorney fees for costs 

incurred in bringing or responding to the motion. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 provides that, when a motion to compel is granted in part and 

2:15-cv-11108-PDB-APP Doc # 36 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 788
4

denied in part, “the court may . . . after giving an opportunity to be heard, 

apportion reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) 

(emphasis added). After finding some degree of fault on both sides, the 

Court declines to do so here. 

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

call with my chambers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

December 23, 2015, 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 # 36 Filed 12/23/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 789