Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 22, 2017

BARBRIE LOGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
MGM GRAND DETROIT CASINO, Defendant.

          Linda V. Parker, District Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION (DE 28) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (DE 30)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. OPINION:

         A. Background

         Plaintiff Barbrie Logan filed this lawsuit pro se against Defendant MGM Grand Detroit Casino (“Casino”). The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint stem from her employment as a culinary utility person, and her causes of action include sex discrimination and retaliation. (DE 1.) Judge Parker has referred this case to me for all pretrial proceedings. (DE 18.)

         On May 11, 2016, the Court conducted an in person scheduling conference. That same day, I entered a scheduling order which, among other things, set the discovery deadline for January 16, 2017 and the deadline for all motions (other than motions in limine) for March 2, 2017. (DE 20.) Since that time, Judge Parker has entered an opinion and order adopting my February 6, 2017 report and recommendation and denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (DEs 31, 27, 22.)

         B. Instant Motions

         Currently before the Court is Defendant's February 8, 2017 motion to compel continued deposition, or, in the alternative, to strike documents, and its request for extension of dispositive motion cutoff (DE 28), regarding which Plaintiff has filed a response (DE 29). Also before the Court is Plaintiff's March 2, 2017 motion to reopen discovery and to compel Defendant to answer interrogatories (DE 30), regarding which Defendant has filed a response (DE 32).

         C. Discussion

         1. Defendant's February 8, 2017 motion

         It seems that Plaintiff's deposition was originally noticed for August 11, 2016 but was rescheduled for and occurred on August 29, 2016. (DE 22-2, DE 22-3, DE 22-4; see also DE 22-7, DE 28-2, DE 32-2.) Defendant noticed Plaintiff's continued deposition for November 14, 2016 and re-noticed it for December 12, 2016. (DE 22-8, DE 22-9.) Defendant contends that, on December 9, 2016, Plaintiff indicated she would not be appearing for the December 12, 2016 deposition. (DE 22-10; see also DE 22-11.) Defendant then filed a December 22, 2016 motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which was ultimately denied by Judge Parker on March 7, 2017. (DE 22, 27, 31.)

         Meanwhile, after I issued the February 6, 2017 report and recommendation but before Judge Parker ruled upon the related motion to dismiss, Defendant filed the instant February 8, 2017 motion, wherein it sought three forms of relief:

(1) that Plaintiff may appear at Defendant's office within 14-days of entry of an order to review a copy of her deposition transcript and, if necessary, fill out an errata sheet;
(2) that Plaintiff appear for her deposition, up to three hours, within 14-days after her review of her transcript or within 28 days of the date of this ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.