Notice Of Hearing, Motion To Extend Discovery, Brief In Support
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Notice Of Hearing, Motion To Extend Discovery, Brief In Support as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 913
- Pages: 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MALCOLM J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-099462-NI -vsHon. Mark A. Goldsmith VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV, Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________/ RYAN E. HILL (P68445) Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C. CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272) Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951) 13112 Trenton Road Attorneys for Defendant Southgate, MI 48195 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 (877) 987-2529 Troy, MI 48098 (248) 879-2000 _______________________________________________________________________/ NOTICE OF HEARING To: Clerk of the Court TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff’s accompanying motion to extend discovery will be heard before the Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith, in the courtroom of said judge, courthouse Pontiac, Michigan, on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
November 18, 2009
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MALCOLM J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-099462-NI -vsHon. Mark A. Goldsmith VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV, Defendant. __________________________________________/ RYAN E. HILL (P68445) CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 13112 Trenton Road Southgate, MI 48195 (877) 987-2529 Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272) JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951) Attorneys for Defendant 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 (248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001 __________________________________________/ MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES Plaintiff Malcolm J. Murray, by and through his attorney Ryan E. Hill, hereby moves to extend the discovery cut-off and otherwise modify the scheduling order entered on June 6, 2009. In support of his motion, the plaintiff states: 1.
The current discovery deadline is November 29, 2009;
2.
All dispositive and motions in limine are currently scheduled to be heard by the
court by December 14, 2009; 3.
Trial is currently set for March 1, 2010;
4.
Due to the difficulties encountered in coordinating discovery in this case, the
earliest suitable date for discovery cut-off is January 21, 2009, the earliest suitable date for dispositive motions to be heard is March 21, 2009, and the earliest suitable date for trial is June 1, 2010. 5.
Plaintiff therefore request that the Scheduling Order, entered on June 6, 2009, be
amended in accordance with the request. Respectfully submitted, CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529 Dated: November 18, 2009
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MALCOLM J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-099462-NI -vsHon. Mark A. Goldsmith VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV, Defendant. __________________________________________/ RYAN E. HILL (P68445) CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 13112 Trenton Road Southgate, MI 48195 (877) 987-2529 Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272) JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951) Attorneys for Defendant 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 (248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001 __________________________________________/ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
This is a 3rd Party action against Defendant. On September 12, 2006 Defendant, Vincent Kaptur was operating a motor vehicle and attempted to turn onto southbound Telegraph road when he hit the vehicle that Plaintiff was driving. As a direct result of the Defendant’s actions of negligence and gross negligence the Plaintiff, sustained serious and permanent injuries and damages; and impairment of bodily functions to which has been documented in the discovery process.
The grant or denial of discovery is within the trial judge's discretion. Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co, 227 Mich.App 614, 616; 576 NW2d 709 (1998). In ruling on a discovery motion, the trial court should consider whether the granting or extension of discovery will facilitate rather than impede the litigation. Masters v. Highland Park, 97 Mich.App 56, 60; 294 NW2d 246 (1980). The court should also consider the timeliness of the request, the duration of the litigation, and possible prejudice to the litigants. Id. Discovery has been ongoing and the majority, if not all, medicals have been disclosed to both parties. However, Plaintiff has requested of Defendant dates to depose Defendant and have yet to secure a date due to Defendant’s school schedule.
Plaintiff would be significantly
prejudiced if not allowed to depose Defendant and the additional driver that was in the vehicle at the time of the accident. In addition, Plaintiff during discovery unfortunately had a stroke that left him non-verbal for an extended period of time and made access to Plaintiff virtually impossible as Counsel was unaware of his location. It was not until nearly 4 month after the stroke that Counsel made contact with Plaintiff. An additional deposition of Plaintiff was to be scheduled sometime in November yet the parties have failed to secure a date to fit their respective schedules. The case continues to progress forward as Plaintiff is still seeing medical professionals to obtain additional medical opinions as to the extent of his injuries. Both parties would not be prejudiced in any way if discovery was extended at Plaintiff’s request.
If fact, extending
discovery would benefit or facilitate the litigation rather than hinder in that most, if not all documents have been exchanged; the sole reason for said request is to depose both Plaintiff and Defendant and continue with Plaintiff’s medical supervision and or examinations.
Respectfully submitted, CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529 Dated: November 18, 2009
November 18, 2009
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MALCOLM J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-099462-NI -vsHon. Mark A. Goldsmith VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV, Defendant. __________________________________________/ RYAN E. HILL (P68445) CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 13112 Trenton Road Southgate, MI 48195 (877) 987-2529 Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272) JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951) Attorneys for Defendant 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 (248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001 __________________________________________/ MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES Plaintiff Malcolm J. Murray, by and through his attorney Ryan E. Hill, hereby moves to extend the discovery cut-off and otherwise modify the scheduling order entered on June 6, 2009. In support of his motion, the plaintiff states: 1.
The current discovery deadline is November 29, 2009;
2.
All dispositive and motions in limine are currently scheduled to be heard by the
court by December 14, 2009; 3.
Trial is currently set for March 1, 2010;
4.
Due to the difficulties encountered in coordinating discovery in this case, the
earliest suitable date for discovery cut-off is January 21, 2009, the earliest suitable date for dispositive motions to be heard is March 21, 2009, and the earliest suitable date for trial is June 1, 2010. 5.
Plaintiff therefore request that the Scheduling Order, entered on June 6, 2009, be
amended in accordance with the request. Respectfully submitted, CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529 Dated: November 18, 2009
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MALCOLM J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Case No. 09-099462-NI -vsHon. Mark A. Goldsmith VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV, Defendant. __________________________________________/ RYAN E. HILL (P68445) CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 13112 Trenton Road Southgate, MI 48195 (877) 987-2529 Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272) JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951) Attorneys for Defendant 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 (248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001 __________________________________________/ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
This is a 3rd Party action against Defendant. On September 12, 2006 Defendant, Vincent Kaptur was operating a motor vehicle and attempted to turn onto southbound Telegraph road when he hit the vehicle that Plaintiff was driving. As a direct result of the Defendant’s actions of negligence and gross negligence the Plaintiff, sustained serious and permanent injuries and damages; and impairment of bodily functions to which has been documented in the discovery process.
The grant or denial of discovery is within the trial judge's discretion. Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co, 227 Mich.App 614, 616; 576 NW2d 709 (1998). In ruling on a discovery motion, the trial court should consider whether the granting or extension of discovery will facilitate rather than impede the litigation. Masters v. Highland Park, 97 Mich.App 56, 60; 294 NW2d 246 (1980). The court should also consider the timeliness of the request, the duration of the litigation, and possible prejudice to the litigants. Id. Discovery has been ongoing and the majority, if not all, medicals have been disclosed to both parties. However, Plaintiff has requested of Defendant dates to depose Defendant and have yet to secure a date due to Defendant’s school schedule.
Plaintiff would be significantly
prejudiced if not allowed to depose Defendant and the additional driver that was in the vehicle at the time of the accident. In addition, Plaintiff during discovery unfortunately had a stroke that left him non-verbal for an extended period of time and made access to Plaintiff virtually impossible as Counsel was unaware of his location. It was not until nearly 4 month after the stroke that Counsel made contact with Plaintiff. An additional deposition of Plaintiff was to be scheduled sometime in November yet the parties have failed to secure a date to fit their respective schedules. The case continues to progress forward as Plaintiff is still seeing medical professionals to obtain additional medical opinions as to the extent of his injuries. Both parties would not be prejudiced in any way if discovery was extended at Plaintiff’s request.
If fact, extending
discovery would benefit or facilitate the litigation rather than hinder in that most, if not all documents have been exchanged; the sole reason for said request is to depose both Plaintiff and Defendant and continue with Plaintiff’s medical supervision and or examinations.
Respectfully submitted, CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.
By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill Ryan E. Hill Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray 13112 Trenton Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 1 (877) 987-2529 Dated: November 18, 2009
Related Documents
Brief In Support Of Motion To Recuse
October 2019 29
Motion And Notice Of Hearing
October 2019 20
