UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SHORT,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-12323

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

SHERIFF DAN HINES, SGT. MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

WALKER, LT. CARMONEY,

JOHN DOE OFFICERS,

COORDINATED CARE PLLC,

OFFICER WICKHAM, OFFICER

KELLENBERGER, RHONDA

SCHULTZ, NANCY YIRKU,

JACKIE COX, MICHAEL BURGESS,

and CARRIE DASH,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(DOCKET NO. 45) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO GRANT LEAVE TO

SERVE AN ADDITIONAL 25 INTERROGATORIES (DOCKET NO. 40)

This matter comes before the Court on several discovery motions. This is a pro se civil

rights action filed by a Michigan state prisoner. (Docket no. 20). Defendants Hines [sic Heyns],

Walker, Carmoney, Wickham, Brittin, and Kellenberger have filed a Motion for Dismissal and

Summary Judgment which is now pending. (Docket no. 43). In connection with that motion, these

same Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. (Docket no. 45). Plaintiff has not responded

to that motion and the time for responding has expired. Prior to the Defendants’ filing their motions,

the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Grant Leave to Serve an Additional 25 Interrogatories to Defendants.

(Docket no. 40). All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for action. (Docket no.

1
11). The Court dispenses with oral argument on the motions pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). The

Court is now ready to rule on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Plaintiff’s Motion to Grant

Leave to Serve an Additional 25 Interrogatories to Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

On August 4, 2009 the Court entered a Scheduling Order providing that discovery was due

by December 31, 2009. (Docket no. 7). The discovery period was subsequently extended to January

31, 2010. (Docket no. 19 at 5). Neither party addressed the discovery deadline in their pending

motions or moved to amend the Scheduling Order. After Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting

leave to serve additional interrogatories, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and attached

more than one hundred and sixty pages of documents as exhibits. (Docket no. 47). Defendants have

also attached over one hundred pages of documents as exhibits to their Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Docket no. 43).

Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity as state employees in their Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 43). The Sixth Circuit has made clear that the Court is required

to resolve the question of qualified immunity before permitting further discovery. Skousen v.

Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520, 526-27 (6th Cir. 2002). In accordance with Sixth Circuit

authority and with the Court’s Scheduling Order in this case, the Court finds that the discovery

period is closed pending consideration of Defendants’ summary judgment motion and further order

of this Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Grant Leave to Serve an

Additional 25 Interrogatories to Defendants (docket no. 40) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (docket no. 45)

is GRANTED to the extent that discovery is closed pending further Order of this Court, and is

2
otherwise DENIED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of

this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: August 30, 2010 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon William Short and

Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: August 30, 2010 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

3