All Americanlook Inc. v. Super Sublimation, LLC

No. 2:25-cv-10215 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · December 16, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-10215

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendant’s motion to extend the scheduling order and discovery deadline by thirty days. The Court struck Defendant’s motions to compel and seal because Defendant failed to engage in the good-faith, interactive conferral required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a)(1).

Holdings

  1. A thirty-day extension of the discovery deadline was warranted despite deficiencies in defendant's prior counsel's diligence because new lead counsel was acting diligently, plaintiff identified no meaningful prejudice from the short extension, and denying the extension would risk prejudicing defendant and preventing resolution on the merits.
  2. A motion to compel must be preceded by a substantive, good-faith conferral concerning the specific contemplated motion and conducted as an interactive process aimed at resolving or narrowing the dispute. Defendant's brief conversations and filing before receiving requested information did not satisfy that requirement, so the motions to compel and seal were stricken.
  3. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.20(f) requires local counsel to be prepared and authorized to conduct the case if nonlocal counsel does not do so, but it does not require local counsel to duplicate lead counsel's day-to-day efforts.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendant demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for a thirty-day extension of the scheduling order.
  2. Whether defendant's motions to compel and seal should be stricken for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a)(1)'s good-faith conferral requirement.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372, 376 (6th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Gratz v. Bollinger, 353 F. Supp. 2d 929, 945 (E.D. Mich. 2005)(analogized)
  • Doe v. Athens County, No. 2:22-cv-855, 2023 WL 5379571, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2023)(followed)
  • Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Grae v. Corrections Corp. of America, 134 F.4th 927 (6th Cir. 2025)(mentioned)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…