Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LITTIECE JONES,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:24-cv-11224
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 69);
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENTION
TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 88); STRIKING TWO
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 83; 84); DENYING THREE OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 67; 78; 85); GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF, MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER, AND REQUEST STAGGERED DEADLINES
(ECF No. 75); ADJOURNING FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE; AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE DEPOSITION AVAILABILITY
TO DEFENDANT
Although discovery in this employment-discrimination case began over a year
ago, much of it remains incomplete. So, in July 2025, in an attempt to facilitate
Plaintiff Littiece Jones’s participation in discovery, this Court granted several
reasonable discovery accommodations that Jones had requested and reminded Jones
of her obligation to participate in discovery.
Since then, Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) has terminated Jones’s
employment and now reports that Jones has still failed to engage in discovery. In
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 17

- 2 -
light of these events, Jones now seeks a preliminary injunction reinstating her
employment with Delta, and Delta seeks dismissal of Jones’s case for her failure to
engage in discovery. Additionally, Jones has filed five other motions that are ripe
for this Court’s review. All eight of these motions will be addressed below.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff Littiece Jones, proceeding 	pro se, sued her
employer, Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., alleging that Delta violated several
federal laws when it failed to promote her, failed to accommodate her disability,
provided unequal terms and conditions of employment, retaliated against her, and
failed to accommodate her religion. ECF No. 1 at PageID.5. Five months later,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which laid out seven specific causes of action:
Count 	Allegation
I 	Violation of Title VII based on religion
II 	Violation of Title VII based on disability
III 	Violation of Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act
IV 	Violation of Title VII based on hostile environment harassment
V 	Violation of Title VII Severe or Pervasive Requirement
VI 	Retaliatory harassment
VII 	Violation of Michigan’s Whistleblower’s Protection Act
ECF No. 26 at PageID.452.
Discovery was set to close on June 30, 2025. See ECF No. 25. In March 2025,
Delta filed a motion to compel Jones to provide responses to some of Delta’s
interrogatories, produce documents responsive to Delta’s requests for production,
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 17

- 3 -
and sign medical-release authorizations. See ECF No. 32 at PageID.549. Jones
responded to Delta’s motion, explaining that she needed accommodations to comply
with her discovery obligations. ECF No. 34 at PageID.720–21. After a hearing on
the motion, see ECF No. 37, this Court granted Delta’s motion to compel “to the
extent [Jones] must respond to [Delta’s] specified interrogatories and all requests for
production.” 	ECF 	No. 	38 	at 	PageID.776. 	As 	for 	Jones’s 	requests 	for
accommodations, 	the 	Court 	provided 	Jones 	“30 	days 	to 	propose 	reasonable
accommodations for her discovery-production and discovery obligations” for this
Court to review. Id. Finally, this Court vacated the scheduling order that was in
effect, noting that a new scheduling order would “be issued after consideration of
[Jones’s] proposed discovery and deposition accommodations.” Id. at PageID.777.
Jones submitted proposed accommodations for this Court’s review, and on
July 8, 2025, this Court issued an order setting forth which of Jones’s proposed
discovery accommodations would apply during the remainder of discovery. ECF
No. 42. That order also directed Jones to produce completed interrogatory responses
to Delta by July 31, 2025, and then “respond to the remaining discovery requests on
a rolling basis based on a priority list identified by [Delta], with a production being
made, at a minimum, once every 14 days.” Id. at PageID.785 (emphasis in original).
Three weeks later, this Court issued a new scheduling order, setting the close of fact
discovery for September 30, 2025. ECF No. 45.
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 17

- 4 -
Yet just over a week after the new scheduling order was issued, Delta filed a
motion requesting a pretrial conference to discuss ongoing discovery issues. ECF
No. 49. This Court granted the motion, ECF No. 56, and the parties appeared for an
in-person status conference on August 26, 2025. See ECF Nos. 56; 58. During that
status conference, the Parties discussed the status of discovery and Jones’s ongoing
communications with Delta employees.
The following day, this Court ordered Jones to comply with its May 2025
order, ECF No. 38, “by providing complete responses to Delta’s interrogatories and
requests for production by the close of discovery on September 30, 2025.” ECF No.
58 at PageID.837. It also ordered Jones to sit for her deposition—in accordance with
the accommodations set forth in this Court’s July 2025 order, ECF No. 42—by the
close of discovery, noting that “[i]f Jones is able to produce the records requested by
Delta in connection with her deposition” before the scheduled date, Jones could be
deposed via Zoom. Id. at PageID.837–38; see also ECF No. 42 at PageID.786
(detailing the reasonable accommodations for Jones’s deposition).
On the evening of September 25, 2025, Jones notified this Court that Delta
had terminated her employment and asked this Court to stay Delta’s termination
decision. ECF No. 67. The next day, Delta filed a motion to dismiss Jones’s case for
her failure to participate in discovery, explaining that Jones had not made herself
available for deposition before the close of fact discovery. ECF No. 69. Since then,
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 4 of 17

- 5 -
Jones filed five additional motions, many of which are duplicative or administrative
in nature, see ECF Nos. 75; 78; 83; 84; 85., and Delta has filed one administrative
motion seeking an extension of time, see ECF No. 88.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jones’s Motion to Stay Employment Termination (ECF No. 67)
On September 25, 2025, Jones filed a motion seeking a court order staying
her employment termination from Delta. ECF No. 67 at PageID.948. Construing
Jones’s motion liberally, it appears she is seeking a preliminary injunction. In
response to Jones’s motion, Delta argues that a preliminary injunction would be
improper because Jones’s termination is not at issue in this lawsuit, and even if it
was, the loss of employment is not an irreparable harm to warrant a preliminary
injunction. ECF No. 77. As explained below, this Court agrees with Delta and will
deny Jones’s motion.
1. Legal Standard
“[A] preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.’” Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155, 158 (2018) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). In considering whether to grant a motion
for a preliminary injunction, courts consider four factors:
(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 5 of 17

- 6 -
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served
by issuance of the injunction.
Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Cromer, 31 F.4th 356, 365–66 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting
City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014)).
Importantly, a showing of irreparable harm is required for a preliminary injunction
to issue. See D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019) (“If the
plaintiff isn’t facing imminent and irreparable injury, there’s no need to grant relief
now as opposed to at the end of the lawsuit.”).
2. Discussion
Delta’s decision to terminate Jones is not at issue in this case,1 but even
assuming that it was, the loss of employment is not an irreparable harm to warrant
the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Indeed, a harm is irreparable “if it is not
fully compensable by monetary damages.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
Cnty. Govt., 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002). Thus, “[t]he fact that an individual
may lose his income for some extended period of time does not result in irreparable
harm, as income wrongly withheld may be recovered through monetary damages in
the form of back pay.” Id. at 579; see also Aluminum Workers Int’l Union, AFL-
CIO, Local Union No. 215 v. Consol. Aluminum Corp., 696 F.2d 437, 443 (6th Cir.
1982) (holding that absent a showing that the employer will be unable to provide
1 Recall, Jones’s claims, as set forth in her amended complaint arise out of events
occurring between 2021 and October 2024. See ECF No. 26.
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 6 of 17

- 7 -
backpay, loss of employment “is not irreparable harm” to warrant injunctive relief);
Hayes v. City of Memphis, 73 F. App’x 140, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding loss of
employment “is fully compensable by monetary relief and is, therefore, not
irreparable”).
In sum, because Jones has not shown that she will suffer irreparable harm if
she is not reinstated, her motion for a preliminary injunction staying her employment
termination will be denied. See Sumner Cnty. Sch., 942 F.3d at 327–28 (explaining
a district court need not analyze remaining preliminary-injunction factors if it finds
there is no irreparable injury).
B. Delta’s Motion to Dismiss Case (ECF No. 69)
In this motion, Delta seeks a dismissal of Jones’s case on two legal bases: her
failure to prosecute or, alternatively, as a discovery sanction.
1. Legal Standard
Under Civil Rule 37(b)(2), if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or
permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may . . . dismiss[] the
action or proceeding in whole or in part.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Similarly,
Civil Rule 41(b) authorizes district courts to dismiss a case where the plaintiff fails
to prosecute their case. F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
“Under both [Civil Rule] 37(b) and [Civil Rule] 41(b), the test to determine
whether dismissal is warranted is the same.” Johnson v. Pub. Serv. Credit Union,
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 7 of 17

- 8 -
No. 4:25-cv-11123, 2025 WL 2538842 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 25-11123, 2025 WL 2533987 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 3,
2025). Courts consider: (1) whether “the failure to cooperate or prosecute [was] due
to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) [whether] the adversary [was] prejudiced by
the party’s conduct; (3) [whether] the party [was] warned that failure to cooperate or
prosecute could lead to dismissal; and (4) the existence and appropriateness of less
drastic sanctions.” Id. (citing Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995);
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dept., 529 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008)).
2. Discussion
Delta argues that dismissal is warranted here because it has been prejudiced
by Jones repeated and willful failures to engage in discovery and comply with this
Court’s discovery orders. ECF No. 69. Specifically, Delta argues that it is prejudiced
by Jones’s discovery failures by having to spend “considerable time, money, and
effort” in pursuing the discovery materials it is entitled to, but Jones refuses to
provide. Id. at PageID.954. Moreover, Delta argues that because of Jones’s willful
failures, Delta is unable to “fully develop its defenses.” Id.
Delta articulates four ways in which Jones has willfully failed to engage in
discovery: First, Delta points out that that Jones has still not provided complete
responses to Delta’s interrogatories. Id. at PageID.978. Second, Delta notes that
although 	Jones 	has 	provided 	Delta 	“a 	few 	W-2s 	and 	four 	signed 	medical
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 8 of 17

- 9 -
authorizations,” Jones still has not responded to the majority of Delta’s requests for
production. Id. Third, Delta alleges that Jones “refuses to execute an authorization
for release of medical records” from one particular provider. Id. Finally, Delta
explains that “Jones has not cooperated” with scheduling her deposition, such that
Delta was unable to depose Jones before the September 30 discovery deadline. Id.
at PageID.978–79.
To be sure, these are troubling reports from Delta. This Court has instructed
Jones 	on 	several 	occasions—through 	orders 	and 	at 	hearings 	and 	status
conferences—that Jones has an obligation to participate in discovery, regardless of
what else may be happening in her life. See ECF Nos. 38; 42; 58. And this Court has
provided several reasonable accommodations to facilitate Jones’s participation in
discovery. See ECF No. 42. Yet Jones still has not demonstrated that she has
meaningfully engaged in discovery.
Nevertheless, Delta’s motion will be denied because it appears that Delta was
the party to cancel Jones’s deposition. See ECF No. 73-5 at PageID.1373. Indeed,
had Jones cancelled the deposition or failed to appear for it, the outcome of Delta’s
motion would be a different story. But here, because Delta was the party to call off
Jones’s deposition, it may not place the blame for Jones’s failure to be deposed
wholly on Jones. See Bass, 71 F.3d at 241. In this way, dismissal of this case is not
warranted under either Rule 37(b) or Rule 41(b).
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 9 of 17

- 10 -
Accordingly, this Court will set a new discovery cutoff date, during which
time Jones must provide Delta with (1) complete answers to Delta’s interrogatories;
(2) responses to all Delta’s requests for production; and (3) signed medical
authorization requests for all providers.
Finally—and importantly—Jones must sit for her deposition, subject to the
accommodations set forth in this Court’s previous order, see ECF No. 42, before the
new discovery cutoff deadline. Because this Court is troubled by Delta’s report that
Jones did not respond to Delta’s repeated requests for Jones’s availability to sit for
a deposition in September 2025, it will require Jones to provide Delta with six dates
between November 17, 2025, and January 9, 2026, that Jones is available to be
deposed. Jones must provide these six dates to Delta on or before November 12,
2025.
As a final matter, this Court will remind Jones yet again that if she does not
satisfy the discovery obligations outlined above by the expiration of the new
discovery deadline, her case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with this Court’s discovery orders. This is the last warning Jones will
receive.
C. Jones’s Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff, Modify Scheduling Order, and
Request Staggered Deadlines (ECF No. 75)
On September 30, 2025—the discovery deadline—Jones filed a motion
seeking a 90-day extension of the discovery deadline. ECF No. 75. She also
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 10 of 17

- 11 -
requested that the remaining deadlines in this case be “stagger[ed]” such that they
fall “at least 45 days” after her deadlines in another case before this Court in which
she is the plaintiff. Id. at PageID.1382.
There is good cause to grant Jones’s request to extend the discovery cutoff,
as both Parties have an interest in completing discovery. So, Jones’s motion will be
granted in part to the extent that the discovery cutoff will be extended to January 16,
2026. But it will be denied to the extent it requests staggered deadlines with an
entirely separate case.
D. Jones’s “Combined Partial Motion to Stay Employment Termination, for
Extension of Time, and for Leave to File Media and Documentary Exhibits
(With Request to File Exhibit Under Seal)” (ECF No. 78)
On October 8, 2025, Jones filed a single document that appears to be three
motions in one. First, Jones again seeks a court order staying her termination of
employment from Delta. ECF No. 78 at PageID.1418–21. But, as explained above,
such a preliminary injunction is not warranted, so that request will be denied.
Next, 	Jones 	seeks 	permission 	to 	file 	electronic 	media 	exhibits. 	Id. 	at
PageID.1421–22. But she does not explain exactly what these exhibits are, nor how
they are relevant to a pending or forthcoming motion. She merely states that she
“possesses multiple audio and video recordings and supporting documents that
directly corroborate her claims.” Id. at PageID.1421. In this way, this request does
not comply with the local rules regarding e-filing procedures. Moreover, to the
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 11 of 17

- 12 -
extent Jones is seeking to file these electronic media exhibits in support of her
request for a preliminary injunction, as explained above, a preliminary injunction is
not warranted, regardless of what the electronic media exhibits might show.
Therefore, this request will be denied.
Finally, Jones seeks an extension until October 29, 2025, to file a reply brief
in support of her motion for a preliminary injunction. Id. at PageID.1422. But this
Court has already determined that under well-settled law, loss of employment is not
irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Overstreet, 305 F.3d
at 578. So this extension request will be denied.
In sum, all three requests contained in Jones’s October 8, 2025, motion, ECF
No. 78, will be denied.
E. Jones’s Combined Motion in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
and Emergency Motion for Extension of Time, Disability and Religious
Accommodations (ECF No. 83)
On October 17, 2025, Jones filed a document titled a “Combined Motion.”
ECF No. 83 at PageID.1449. In this document, Jones appears to combine her
response to Delta’s motion to dismiss with motions seeking deadline extensions and
accommodation requests. 	See 	ECF No. 83 (“Plaintiff’s Combined Motion in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Emergency Motion for Extension
of Time, Disability and Religious Accommodations”). But embedding motions
within a response is improper under the Local Rules. Indeed, under Local Rules
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 12 of 17

- 13 -
5.1(e) and 7.1(i), “[m]otions must not be combined with any other stand-alone
document.” E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(e); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(i). In fact, Local Rule 7.1(i)
expressly states that “a motion for preliminary injunctive relief must not be
combined” with other documents like a response brief. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(i). And
“[p]apers filed in violation of this rule will be stricken.” Id.
Accordingly, 	because 	Jones 	filed 	a 	“combined 	motion” 	with 	motions
embedded within a response, it will be stricken for failure to comply with the Local
Rules. See id.
F. Jones’s Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 84)
On October 21, 2025, Jones filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of
Medical Emergency Visit and Follow-Up Provider Letter, and Motion to File
Current 	and 	Previous 	Medical Documentation 	Under Seal.” ECF No. 84 	at
PageID.1461. 	She 	requests 	an 	order 	sealing 	“all 	previously 	filed 	medical
documentation and provider letters submitted by [Jones] between March 2025 and
October 2025,” including two exhibits containing medical records which she
attached to her motion. Id. at PageID.1462.
But this motion will be stricken for failure to comply with the Local Rules as
well. Indeed, Local Rule 5.3(b)(3)(A) sets forth a list of six requirements that a
motion to seal must contain. See E.D. Mich. LR 5.3(b)(3)(A)(i)–(vi). And Jones’s
motion is missing several of these requirements. See ECF No. 84. Indeed, Jones
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 13 of 17

- 14 -
provides merely a timeframe of when she filed a broad category of documents she
wishes to now seal. See id. at PageID.1462. She does not identify these documents
or exhibits with the specificity or detail required by the Local Rules. Thus, this
motion will also be stricken.
G. Jones’s “Emergency Motion Requesting Standing Order for Pro Se Sealed
E-Filings, Media Submissions with transcript Deadlines, ADA
Accommodation Process Instructions, and E-Filing Training Access” (ECF
No. 85)
In this motion, Jones seeks a “standing order” that (1) permits Jones to
electronically file documents under seal; (2) allows her to “continue to submit audio,
video, and digital media exhibits” through the court’s media file upload function; (3)
provide Jones 30 days after each media submission to file a corresponding transcript;
(4) 	give her “instructions and/or forms outlining the Court’s ADA interactive-
process procedures so that her licensed medical provider or certified therapist may
complete and submit them under seal;” and (5) provide Jones with “CM/ECF
training and procedural resources.” ECF No. 85 at PageID.1469.
Jones’s motion will be denied for several reasons. First, she has not shown
good cause for this Court to relieve her from the Local Rules regarding the
procedures to file sealed exhibits and upload media files. See E.D. Mich. LR
5.3(b)(3)(A). Second, to the extent she seeks “e-filing training and procedural
assistance,” court-provided training does not exist. However, Jones may access
information about electronic case filing through the Court’s public website at
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 14 of 17

- 15 -
www.mied.uscourts.gov located under the “E-filing” tab. 	Similarly, to the extent
Jones seeks “instructions and/or forms outlining the Court’s ADA interactive-
process 	procedures,” 	Jones 	may 	access 	information 	about 	Court-provided
accommodations without a court order. Indeed, she may access such information at
https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=Accommodations. 	She
may 	also 	contact 	the 	Court’s 	Access 	Coordinator 	at 	(313) 	234-5051 	or 	at
access_coordinator@mied.uscourts.gov if she wishes to do so.
H. Delta’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of its Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 88)
On October 31, 2025, Delta filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file
a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss. ECF No. 88. Delta explains that it
is requesting an extension because Jones did not file a complete response opposing
their motion, and her motion for an extension of time to file a response is still
pending. Id. at PageID.1479.
But because this Court has already determined that Delta’s motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 69, will be denied, Delta’s motion to extend its deadline to file a reply will
be denied as moot.
I. Summary
The outcome of all eight motions addressed in this Order is summarized
below:
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 15 of 17

- 16 -
ECF
No.
Motion Title 	Disposition
67 	Jones’s “Emergency Motion to Stay Employment
Termination and Request for Status Conference”
DENIED
69 	Delta’s Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice 	DENIED
75 	Jones’s Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff,
Modify Scheduling Order, and Request for
Staggered Deadlines
GRANTED IN
PART to the extent
that discovery will
be extended by 60
days. DENIED IN
PART in all other
respects.
78 	Jones’s “Combined Partial Motion to Stay
Employment Termination, for Extension of Time,
and for Leave to File Media and Documentary
Exhibits (With Request to File Exhibit Under Seal)”
DENIED
83 	Jones’s Combined Motion in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Emergency
Motion for Extension of Time, Disability and
Religious Accommodations.”
STRICKEN
84 	Jones’s Motion to File Under Seal 	STRICKEN
85 	Jones’s “Emergency Motion Requesting Standing
Order for Pro Se Sealed E-Filings, Media
Submissions with transcript Deadlines, ADA
Accommodation Process Instructions, and E-Filing
Training Access”
DENIED
88 	Delta’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply as to Motion to Dismiss
DENIED AS
MOOT
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Three of Jones’s Motions, ECF Nos. 67; 78; 85, are
DENIED;
2. Two 	of 	Jones’s 	Motions, 	ECF 	Nos. 	83; 	84, 	are
STRICKEN;
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 16 of 17

- 17 -
3. Delta’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 69, is DENIED;
4. Delta’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Reply, ECF
No. 88, is DENIED AS MOOT; and
5. Jones’s Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff, Modify
Scheduling Order, and Request Staggered Deadlines,
ECF No. 75, is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it
seeks to extend the discovery deadline, but is DENIED
IN PART in all other respects.
Further, it is ORDERED that the fact discovery deadline is ADJOURNED
to Friday, January 16, 2026.
Further, it is ORDERED that Jones is DIRECTED to provide Delta with six
dates she is available between November 17, 2025 and January 9, 2026, to sit for her
deposition. Jones must provide these six dates of availability to Delta on or before
November 12, 2025.
Finally, it is ORDERED that Jones is ON NOTICE that her failure to comply
with any of her discovery obligations during this final extension of discovery will
result in dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
discovery orders.
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: November 5, 2025
Case 2:24-cv-11224-SKD-EAS ECF No. 89, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/05/25 Page 17 of 17