UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

ARIC MARTIN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-12996

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge SAGINAW COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, Honorable Patricia T. Morris Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge __________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this employment-discrimination case, Plaintiff Aric Martin has brought 11 Title VII claims against Defendant Saginaw County Road Commission. See Martin v. Saginaw Cnty. Rd. Comm’n, No. 1:20-CV-12996,

, at *4 (E.D. Mich. June 7, 2022). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of Defendant’s nonprivileged investigatory documents. ECF No. 26. After Plaintiff’s motion to compel was fully briefed—but before it was resolved—Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 33. Magistrate Judge Morris’s Report and Recommendation revealed that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment would benefit from the resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See Martin,

, at *8 (“[T]he R&R finds a genuine issue of material fact as to all four elements of Plaintiff's racial-discrimination claims.”). Accordingly, this Court deferred resolving the Motion for Summary Judgment until discovery was complete, which was scheduled for September 1, 2022. Id. at *10. Discovery has ended, and Judge Morris has resolved Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, requiring Defendant to provide numerous pieces of relevant audio and documentary evidence. See ECF Nos. 52; 54. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel has sufficiently demonstrated that he could not “present facts essential to justify [his] opposition” to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d). For this reason, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d)(1). Yet it would be a manifest injustice not to permit Defendant to file a new motion

for summary judgment after its first was denied for incomplete discovery. See Thomas v. Lambert, No. 1:19-CV-11046,

, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2022); see also Miner v. Ogemaw Cnty. Rd. Comm’n, No. 1:21-CV-11192,

, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2022) (noting that “Sixth Circuit policy ‘values the disposition of cases on their merits.’” (quoting Burrell v. Henderson,

(6th Cir. 2006))). To ensure that this case is properly resolved on the merits, the parties will be permitted to file motions for summary judgment on or before October 13, 2022. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33, is DENIED.

Further, it is ORDERED that the parties may FILE motions for summary judgment on or before October 13, 2022.

Dated: September 1, 2022 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge