Motion to Extend Discovery in Michigan

Basis for Filing a Motion to Extend Discovery

“MCR 2.301(B)(1) allows a court to set ‘the time for completion of discovery ... by an order entered under MCR 2.401(B).’ MCR 2.401(B)(2)(a)(v) provides that the court may enter a scheduling order that establishes a schedule for discovery to be completed.” (Brooks Williamson & Assocs. v. Braun, No. 357170, at *2 [Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2022].)

Considerations for Filing a Motion to Extend Discovery

“When considering a request for discovery, a court ‘should consider whether the granting of discovery will facilitate or hamper the litigation.’” (Brooks Williamson & Assocs. v. Braun, No. 357170, at *2 [Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2022] quoting Nuriel v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Metro Detroit (1990) 186 Mich.App. 141, 146.)

In McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., this Court explained that in determining whether to grant a motion to extend discovery:

‘the trial court should consider whether the granting or extension of discovery will facilitate rather than impede the litigation. Factors such as the timeliness of the request, the duration of the litigation and the possible prejudice to the parties should also be considered.’”

(Brooks Williamson & Assocs. v. Braun, No. 357170, at *2 [Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2022] quoting McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1988) 165 Mich.App. 321, 330.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof for Deciding a Motion to Extend Discovery

An appellate court “reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision regarding a party's motion to extend discovery....” (Brooks Williamson & Assocs. v. Braun, No. 357170, at *1 [Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2022] citing Decker v. Trux R Us, Inc. (2014) 307 Mich.App. 472, 478.)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” (Id., citing Decker, 307 Mich.App. at 478.)

Prior Court Decision Concerning Motions to Extend Discovery

“In order to invoke the probate court's discretion to grant an adjournment, a party must demonstrate good cause.” (Driver v. Driver (In re Driver Estate), No. 350303, at *3 [Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2021] citing MCR 2.503(B)(1).) “‘[C]ases upholding a denial [of a motion to adjourn] have always involved some combination of numerous past continuances, failure of the movant to exercise due diligence, and lack of any injustice to the movant.’” (Driver v. Driver (In re Driver Estate), No. 350303, at *3 [Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2021] citing Ruffin v. Kent (1984) 139 Mich App 479, 480-481.)

“‘Where a motion to adjourn is requested in order to complete discovery, the inquiry focuses on whether the movant has shown an adequate explanation for the failure to complete discovery and whether the failure was due to a lack of diligence in preparation.’” (Id. at 481-482.)