Bell v. Starks

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:23-cv-10074-FKB-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID .< pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY BELL,
Case No. 23-10074
Plaintiff,
V.
Hon. F. Kay Behm United States District Judge
SHANA STARKS,
Hon. David R. Grand U.S. Magistrate Judge
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY (ECF No. 98)
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Bell's motion to reopen limited discovery (ECF No. 98), which followed the appointment of counsel on Bell's behalf.
The parties report general concurrence on most of the issues presented in the motion, and at a hearing indicated disagreement as to only a few particular issues: written discovery as to Starks' personnel file, the length of three depositions, and the length of time that discovery will be reopened.
Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the court finds good cause to reopen limited discovery, the motion is GRANTED in accordance with the below, and it is therefore ORDERED that:
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

Case 4:23-cv-10074-FKB-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID .< pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 4
1) Discovery is reopened until January 8, 2026, limited to at most the issues explained in (a) through (k) in Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 98, PageID.709-10), and the depositions of (1) Defendant, (2) Corrections Officer Durand Jones, and (3) Billy Joe Hammon, an incarcerated witness to the incident, if he can be located.
2) Defendant's request to limit the length of her own deposition to 4 hours is DENIED; the request is GRANTED, however, as to the depositions of Jones and Hammon, and those two depositons shall be limited to 4 hours.
3) The Case Management Order (Phase II) is adjusted as follows:
EVENT
CURRENT DEADLINE
NEW DEADLINE
All Other Motions, Including Motions in Limine
December 23, 2025
January 20, 2026
Settlement Conference
Scheduled for December 12, 2025
To occur before February 5, 2026; the court takes no position on rescheduling the current date
Joint Final Pretrial Order
December 23, 2025
January 20, 2026
Proposed Jury Instructions
January 29, 2026
January 29, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference
February 5, 2026 at 1:00 P.M.
No change
Trial - Jury
March 3, 2026 at 9:00 A.M.
No change
As for the discovery in issues (a) through (k), at this time it appears the court does not need to weigh in on written discovery
2

3
disputes. 	See ECF No. 100, PageID.739.1 	Plaintiff should proceed with
all haste in issuing the necessary subpoenas to get written discovery
from third parties as necessary; Defendant should make all efforts to
promptly respond to those subpoenas. The parties should make every
effort to resolve disputes over, for example, the extent of the personnel
file that is discoverable before turning to the court for resolution.
If the parties at any point require additional clarification on the
terms of this order, they are instructed to first consult with one another
to try and come to an agreement, and if an order of the court is needed
to clarify or modify any terms of this order, the parties should submit a
stipulation and proposed order using the Utilities function. If no
agreement or stipulation is reached, the parties should reach out to the
court as soon as possible and be prepared to submit short statements
(briefly explaining the disagreement, their position on the issue, and
requested relief) to the court regarding the dispute prior to meeting
1 If the court has misunderstood Defendant’s representations regarding the
scope of (a) through (k), the parties should construe this order as granting limited
discovery according only to what they had agreed on (i.e. if Plaintiff had agreed not
to pursue any particular items, that agreement should not be considered abrograted
by this order).
Case 4:23-cv-10074-FKB-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 4

4
with the court. Motions to compel should be a matter of last resort, and
the court may expedite the briefing schedule for any such motion.
The court is aware of defense counsel’s ongoing concerns regarding
the pending motion to withdraw (ECF No. 95); in accordance with the
instructions to Defendant and defense counsel made in an ex parte
proceeding on November 10, 2025, that matter is adjourned for two
weeks and the parties, including Defendant herself, should refer to the
docket for an updated notice of hearing on that matter.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 12, 2025 	s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-10074-FKB-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 4