STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

MALCOLM J. MURRAY,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-099462-NI
-vs-
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV,

Defendant.
_______________________________________________________________________/
RYAN E. HILL (P68445) Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C.
CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C. AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272)
Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951)
13112 Trenton Road Attorneys for Defendant
Southgate, MI 48195 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200
(877) 987-2529 Troy, MI 48098
(248) 879-2000
_______________________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: Clerk of the Court

TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff’s accompanying motion to extend discovery will be heard

before the Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith, in the courtroom of said judge, courthouse Pontiac,

Michigan, on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.

November 18, 2009 By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill

Ryan E. Hill
Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray
13112 Trenton Rd.
Southgate, MI 48195
1 (877) 987-2529

STATE OF MICHIGAN
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

MALCOLM J. MURRAY,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-099462-NI
-vs-
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV,

Defendant.
__________________________________________/

RYAN E. HILL (P68445)

CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
13112 Trenton Road
Southgate, MI 48195
(877) 987-2529

Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C.

AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272)
JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951)
Attorneys for Defendant
840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
(248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001
__________________________________________/

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

Plaintiff Malcolm J. Murray, by and through his attorney Ryan E. Hill, hereby moves to

extend the discovery cut-off and otherwise modify the scheduling order entered on June 6, 2009.

In support of his motion, the plaintiff states:

1. The current discovery deadline is November 29, 2009;

2. All dispositive and motions in limine are currently scheduled to be heard by the

court by December 14, 2009;

3. Trial is currently set for March 1, 2010;

 4. Due to the difficulties encountered in coordinating discovery in this case, the

earliest suitable date for discovery cut-off is January 21, 2009, the earliest suitable date for

dispositive motions to be heard is March 21, 2009, and the earliest suitable date for trial is June

1, 2010.

5. Plaintiff therefore request that the Scheduling Order, entered on June 6, 2009, be

amended in accordance with the request.

Respectfully submitted,

CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.

By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill

Ryan E. Hill
Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray
13112 Trenton Rd.
Southgate, MI 48195
1 (877) 987-2529

Dated: November 18, 2009

STATE OF MICHIGAN
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

MALCOLM J. MURRAY,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-099462-NI
-vs-
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
VINCENT DANIEL KAPTUR IV,

Defendant.
__________________________________________/

RYAN E. HILL (P68445)

CAN-AM Legal Services, P.L.L.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
13112 Trenton Road
Southgate, MI 48195
(877) 987-2529

Miller, Canfield, Paddock AND Stone, P.L.C.

AMY M. JOHNSTON (P51272)
JOSEPH G. VERNON (P68951)
Attorneys for Defendant
840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
(248) 879-2000/Fax (248) 879-2001
__________________________________________/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

This is a 3rd Party action against Defendant. On September 12, 2006 Defendant, Vincent

Kaptur was operating a motor vehicle and attempted to turn onto southbound Telegraph road

when he hit the vehicle that Plaintiff was driving. As a direct result of the Defendant’s actions of

negligence and gross negligence the Plaintiff, sustained serious and permanent injuries and

damages; and impairment of bodily functions to which has been documented in the discovery

process.
 The grant or denial of discovery is within the trial judge's discretion. Reed Dairy Farm v.

Consumers Power Co, 227 Mich.App 614, 616; 576 NW2d 709 (1998). In ruling on a discovery

motion, the trial court should consider whether the granting or extension of discovery will

facilitate rather than impede the litigation. Masters v. Highland Park, 97 Mich.App 56, 60; 294

NW2d 246 (1980). The court should also consider the timeliness of the request, the duration of

the litigation, and possible prejudice to the litigants. Id.

Discovery has been ongoing and the majority, if not all, medicals have been disclosed to

both parties. However, Plaintiff has requested of Defendant dates to depose Defendant and have

yet to secure a date due to Defendant’s school schedule. Plaintiff would be significantly

prejudiced if not allowed to depose Defendant and the additional driver that was in the vehicle at

the time of the accident. In addition, Plaintiff during discovery unfortunately had a stroke that

left him non-verbal for an extended period of time and made access to Plaintiff virtually

impossible as Counsel was unaware of his location. It was not until nearly 4 month after the

stroke that Counsel made contact with Plaintiff. An additional deposition of Plaintiff was to be

scheduled sometime in November yet the parties have failed to secure a date to fit their

respective schedules.

The case continues to progress forward as Plaintiff is still seeing medical professionals to

obtain additional medical opinions as to the extent of his injuries. Both parties would not be

prejudiced in any way if discovery was extended at Plaintiff’s request. If fact, extending

discovery would benefit or facilitate the litigation rather than hinder in that most, if not all

documents have been exchanged; the sole reason for said request is to depose both Plaintiff and

Defendant and continue with Plaintiff’s medical supervision and or examinations.

 Respectfully submitted,

CAN-AM LEGAL SERVICES, P.L.L.C.

By:/s/ Ryan E. Hill

Ryan E. Hill
Attorney for Plaintiff, Malcolm J. Murray
13112 Trenton Rd.
Southgate, MI 48195
1 (877) 987-2529

Dated: November 18, 2009