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.

Gjelaj v. Seven Brothers Painting, Inc.

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

April 24, 2019

ENGLANTINA GJELAJ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of ALFRED PASHKO SHQUTAJ, Plaintiff,
v.
SEVEN BROTHERS PAINTING, INC., G.B.S. SCAFFOLDING SERVICE, CORP., and 7 BROTHERS CONTRACTING, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING SPB'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MAJZOUB'S ORDERS [#66]

          DENISE PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On October 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub issued an order regarding the discovery motions filed at Docket Nos. 11, 12, and 21. Dkt. No. 43 (the “Discovery Order”). Among other rulings in the Discovery Order, Magistrate Judge Majzoub ordered, in part, that:

(1) “Not later than October 17, 2018, the parties will submit a protective order regarding the treatment of electronically stored information in SBP's possession. If the parties are unable to agree to the terms of such an order, each party will submit a proposed version.”
(2) “Not later than December 3, 2018, the parties' experts will conduct a review of electronically stored, native-format versions of Alfred Shqutaj's payroll and employment records created by SBP.”

         Dkt. No. 43, PgID 1728.

         On November 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an order pursuant to SBP's motion to extend the deadline for the parties to submit a protective order regarding the treatment of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in SBP's possession (“Motion to Extend Time”). Dkt. No. 61 (the “Extension Order”). In the Extension Order, Magistrate Judge Majzoub granted the Motion to Extend Time, ordering that:

(A) “Not later than December 14, 2018, the parties will submit a stipulated protective order regarding the treatment of electronically stored information in SBP's possession. If the parties are unable to agree to the terms of such an order, each party will submit its own proposed version.”
(B) “[N]ot later than January 18, 2019, the parties' experts will conduct a review of electronically stored, native-format versions of Alfred Shqutaj's payroll and employment records created by SBP.”

Dkt. No. 61, PgID 2027.

         On December 4, 2018, SBP filed “Objections to Magistrate Judge's November 20, 2018 Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Extend Time to Submit Protective Order Regarding Treatment of ESI in SBP's Possession [ECF No. 61] and October 12, 2018 Opinion and Order Regarding Discovery Motions [ECF No. 43].” Dkt. No. 66 (“SPB's Objections”). For the reasons that follow, SBP's Objections are DENIED.

         II. ANALYSIS

         In order to timely object to the Discovery Order issued on October 12, 2018, a party would have needed to file her/its objection(s) no later than October 26, 2018. No. party filed any objection(s) to the Discovery Order on or before that date. Accordingly, any objection(s) to the Discovery Order, including SBP's Objections filed on December 4, 2018, must be dismissed as untimely.

         The Court notes that SBP filed its Motion to Extend Time prior to October 26, 2018. The Court has reviewed the Motion to Extend Time filed by SBP on October 23, 2018, Dkt. No. 45, but nowhere in the Motion to Extend Time did SBP object to or challenge the order requiring SBP to permit the parties' experts to review “electronically stored, native-format versions of Alfred Shqutaj's payroll and employment records created ...


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.