United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
D. BORMAN MAGISTRATE Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS
AND MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States of America initiated this employment civil
rights action against Defendants State of Michigan and
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) on June 13, 2016,
asserting claims of discrimination on the basis of sex in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Docket nos.
1, 6.) This matter is before the Court on Defendants'
June 7, 2018 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Expert
Witness Reports and Modify Scheduling Order. (Docket no. 58.)
Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion on June
11, 2018. (Docket no. 59.) On June 29, 2018, the Motion was
referred to the undersigned for consideration. (Docket no.
61.) The Court has reviewed the Motion, dispenses with oral
argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
7.1(f)(2), and is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
move to extend the deadline for the submission of their
expert witness reports by 60 days, from June 7, 2018, to
August 6, 2018, and to correspondingly extend all other
expert-related deadlines and the dispositive motion deadline
as set forth in the March 12, 2018 Scheduling Order (docket
no. 53) by 60 days. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4)
provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Good
cause is met by determining the moving party's diligence
in attempting to meet the scheduling order and whether the
opposing party will suffer prejudice by amending the
scheduling order. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888,
906 (6th Cir. 2003).
explain that they are unable to meet the current expert
witness report deadline due to Defendants' lead
counsel's illness, for which she was recently
hospitalized and is now on a medical leave of absence.
Defendants further explain that they have since transitioned
this matter to other attorneys, who are now working
diligently to meet all obligations in this matter. Defendants
assert that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the requested
modifications to the Scheduling Order because they are not
seeking to amend the May 28, 2019 trial date.
responds that it is sympathetic to the ongoing health issues
of Defendants' lead counsel but argues that Defendants
have failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested
60-day extension and that such an extension would be
prejudicial to Plaintiff. Plaintiff explains that Defendants
have had Plaintiff's expert witness disclosures since
April 19, 2018, and the Scheduling Order provided Defendants
with 49 days thereafter to complete and file their expert
witness disclosures, by June 7, 2018. Plaintiff points out
that the requested 60-day extension is longer than the
original amount of time provided by the Scheduling Order,
and, if granted, would give Defendants nearly four months to
complete their expert disclosures. Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants have not explained why they need such a long
extension of time. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants
must have known long before June 6 (Defendants' first
communication to Plaintiff regarding an extension) that they
would not be able to meet their expert report deadline, and
they have failed to explain why they did not provide
Plaintiff with more notice of their need for an extension.
Plaintiff further asserts that it will be prejudiced by the
requested extension because it will unduly delay discovery
and cause Plaintiff's major deadlines in this matter to
occur at times when key team members and Plaintiff's
expert are unavailable. Plaintiff also points out that when
first approached by Defendants regarding a 60-day extension,
Plaintiff counter-proposed a 32-day extension to
Defendants' expert witness deadline and alternative
modifications to the other dates in the Scheduling Order;
however, Defendants implicitly rejected Plaintiff's
proposal by filing the instant Motion.
considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds that
Defendants' Motion is a little light on good cause.
Nonetheless, at this juncture, and in consideration of the
alternative dates proposed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that
minimal prejudice will result from a 45-day extension of the
Scheduling Order deadlines.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for
Enlargement of Time to File Expert Witness Reports and Modify
Scheduling Order  is GRANTED IN PART,
amending the deadlines in the current Scheduling Order 
• Defendants' Expert Disclosures: July 23,
• Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:
September 10, 2018;
• Expert Discovery Cutoff: September 24,
• Motions Challenging Experts and Dispositive Motions:
December 3, 2018; and
• All other dates remain as scheduled.
the parties' proposed stipulation to stay all deadlines
for ninety days be entered, the stay ...