Evans et al v. Robertson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SYBRENA EVANS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DANIELLE ROBERTSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-13435
Honorable Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT AND
FILING DEADLINE AND FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT VIDEO EXHIBITS
(ECF NOS. 92, 101)
Plaintiff Sybrena Evans moves to extend the page limit and to submit
video exhibits in support of her response to Defendant Danielle
Robertson’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 92. She then filed a renewed
motion clarifying the requested page limit, requesting one more day to
respond to Robertson’s motion to dismiss, and again seeking leave to file
video exhibits. ECF No. 101. Evans’s motions are GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
Evans sought to exceed by ten pages the page limit for her brief in
response to Robertson’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 92. She later
clarified that she only needs an extension of five pages beyond the
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 5

2
standard limit. ECF No. 101. Evans’s request is GRANTED, and she may
file a response of no more than 30 pages.
Evans also asks for a one-day extension to file her response to
Robertson’s motion to dismiss by November 5, 2025, rather than by
November 4, 2025. ECF No. 101. Robertson’s motion was entered on
October 10, 2025. ECF No. 77. The local rules state that a response to a
motion to dismiss is due “within 21 days following service of the motion.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(A). But Robertson’s motion contains no certificate
of service.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a)(1) requires motions and other
papers to be served on the other parties to an action. Parties may serve
those papers by postal mail or by “sending it to a registered user” via the
Court’s electronic filing system. Rule 5(b)(2). E-filing is not an acceptable
method of serving Evans because she is not a registered user of the e-filing
system. So Robertson must serve Evans by postal mail with any papers
filed in the future.1
1 Conversely, neither Evans nor the Court can serve Robertson by postal
mail until she provides a legitimate address, a matter currently under
dispute. Until that issue is resolved, Robertson must be served by filing
papers on the Court’s docket.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Given the uncertainty about whether Evans was served with
Robertson’s motion, the Court GRANTS Evans’s request to extend the
deadline to respond to that motion to November 5, 2025.
Last, Evans moves for leave to file video exhibits in support of her
response to Robertson’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 92; ECF No. 101.
Evans has not described what issues raised in the motion the videos will
address. A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency. “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plausibility is usually assessed on the face of the
complaint, although a court may also consider “public records, items
appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant’s
motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are
central to the claims contained therein.” 	Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).
Most of Robertson’s motion argues that Evans’s pleadings are
insufficient to state a plausible claim or are barred under the statute of
limitations. ECF No. 77, PageID.981-991. The Court must resolve those
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 5

4
arguments without reference to evidence outside the pleadings. If
Robertson’s arguments go beyond the pleadings, the Court will not
consider those issues unless an exception applies as discussed above
(e.g., matters of public record, exhibits attached to the complaint). The rest
of Robertson’s motion rehashes the same arguments the Court already
considered in its report and recommendation about personal jurisdiction
and venue. 	Id., PageID.991-996. The Court will not revisit those
arguments, so no evidence is necessary.
Because Evans has not shown that the video exhibits are relevant to
the issues properly presented in the motion to dismiss, the Court DENIES
her motion for leave to file those videos.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: November 4, 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
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 5

5
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 November 4, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 5