Parker v. Mahle Filter System North America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAHLE FILTER SYSTEM
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-12491
Honorable Brandy R. McMillion
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 22),
AND FOR THE PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN A CONFERENCE UNDER
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f), TO FILE A DISCOVERY PLAN, AND
TO APPEAR FOR A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Plaintiff Anthony Parker sues his former employer, Defendant Mahle
Filter System North America, Inc. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Brandy R.
McMillion referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 14. Parker moves to compel Mahle’s
production of a witness statement and the witness’s address. ECF No. 22.
Parker’s motion is premature. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(d)(1) precludes parties from “seek[ing] discovery from any source before
the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or
when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” None of
the exceptions to this rule apply. Nor has Parker requested early
discovery. Parker argues that Mahle must produce this information in its
initial disclosures. 	See ECF No. 22. But “[a] party must make the initial
disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference
unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order.” Fed R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(C). Parker’s motion is thus DENIED.
Parker and defense counsel must meet and confer in person or by
video conference to prepare and then file a joint discovery plan as
described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 26(f)(3)(A)-(F), as well as
(1) a brief summary of the case, (2) whether there may be amendments to
pleadings, (3) other anticipated motion practice, (4) the basis for subject-
matter jurisdiction, and (5) other related litigation, by November 21, 2025.
Parker and defense counsel must address during their meet and confer
and in the joint discovery plan whether they wish to engage in alternative
dispute resolution (ADR), the form of ADR they prefer, and the proposed
timing of the ADR. And Parker and defense counsel must appear for a
remote scheduling conference on December 2, 2025 at 11:30 a.m.
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 30, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 30, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3