[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6552911,"mediaKeyId","5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845","parentId",5084411,"title","Judge Orders Shorter Briefs, Sets Trial Logistics Deadlines and Exhibit Rules for Liability Phase","audioSeconds",384,"startMs",3696000,"endMs",4080000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845&start=3696&end=4080","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845/thumbnail_3696000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6552911/Michigan/Judge-Orders-Shorter-Briefs-Sets-Trial-Logistics-Deadlines-and-Exhibit-Rules-for-Liability-Phase","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552911-b6568a5322170fd377c8d0f1b443493c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775308707&Signature=kfg0WMeKHsjvt146MIyO3fuc2V7gqThr4HOcfPfyV~ITKxCp24lN0RkspW2b9MMYlm431MRuZqAaiULneX3zBM5ARnYdzlwBmDEFhKGxspklDQnPsV1DCPNNaCEh~8h8RN~-wft8YjvZ2qLGL6aN6ZciaEem1TmQvcIMkO3h2pkpzQ37we7VMN9vKk1ATBqz3zEr1inRzB~qdcD-v9ggX7edGfoXrHq-Igh1LnkZUqzal8OfZvOBEimh3z8zIljx8z~scCoSp9R19cS4HUtz8Sij2hb24Ea2~JNUu8YnP2omfbaqQDsQdf46BJCdedBwqLQZZizNG9pl626B1FuJ-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-23T13:11:16Z","article","At the June 26 status conference in the Great Lakes Energy consolidated litigation (lead case 20-094MM), the presiding judge announced a set of trial-management directions to streamline the upcoming liability phase and to accommodate the court's heavy calendar.

Key directions from the judge:

- Motion and brief length: \"No motion or brief may exceed 20 pages\" during the liability phase absent exceptional circumstances; parties may seek leave twice but not a third time.

- Attachment limits: Exhibits and attachments were limited to 100 pages unless the court grants leave.

- Trial briefs and exhibits: The judge said he would expect trial briefs and an exhibit book on or before Dec. 15, 2025, and that the scheduling order would describe the required exhibit-book format.

- Witness lists and estimates: Plaintiffs should provide their expected trial witness list by Oct. 1, 2025; defendants by Oct. 15, 2025. The court asked parties to estimate the direct-examination duration for each witness and to estimate cross-examination times after reviewing the opposing witness list.

- Trial window: The judge said he had blocked four weeks in late January/early February (including the week of Martin Luther King Jr. Day) for the liability trial and asked counsel to plan accordingly.

The judge explained the constraints by noting his appellate and trial workload through the end of the year and the limited number of working days remaining. He said the page and attachment limits are intended to conserve judicial time and make the record navigable for appellate review.

Why this matters: The court's operational limits and deadlines set the timeline for parties' trial preparation and may compress the parties' written advocacy, exhibit assembly, and witness-planning tasks. The judge asked for realistic planning and stressed that the court would expect a concrete list of witnesses and time estimates so the trial can be managed within the blocked calendar.

Counsel for both sides agreed to work toward the proposed deadlines. The judge said an interim trial-management order with these requirements would be issued on or before July 15, and that additional scheduling items (trial-book format, exhibit numbering) would be provided in that order.

No formal motion was required for these directions; they were conveyed by the presiding judge as case-management instructions during the status conference.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Court of Claims 20-000094-MM David Krieger v Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy","oneSentenceSummary","The presiding judge set firm limits on brief length and attachments, gave deadlines for trial materials, and asked parties to submit witness lists and estimated testimony durations to manage a four-week liability trial window in January/February 2026.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan","taxId",74552,"location","Michigan","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6552915,"Court and Counsel Set Briefing and Hearing Targets for Daubert Challenge to Expert Sturdivant",2634,2652000,5286000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845&start=2652&end=5286","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845/thumbnail_2652000.jpg","/articles/6552915/Michigan/Court-and-Counsel-Set-Briefing-and-Hearing-Targets-for-Daubert-Challenge-to-Expert-Sturdivant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552915-f154450b6c8bd12bdb92dc166ffcbed4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775308707&Signature=amIfcZI5alIsoZ8L-r2hGI74x1U3li6Y9LhVnafAtJIJeDz9wMkgy5fQqC0oKjL-74l5qc3jCPPNurlTHPBYxIcPbdJ3qGIqywsIvn2h2lA75DIG2UAm3IlV6I1rGhMArTyoI4O9aLQ~og92tgLDVN8WY9VG59l7P1aOrtidCwi0k44C6eblE85ecjbF3Sz0Vhi4PJ2x5wV-ZOgX5IeGB8nmKvRpKNx68pUkbK~GOtM9cQ2FnFDM8CuUxMsx2hHHr0ER5kBdr2-trLER~rqb9EJXAXxtZ1fLs01dCy8JaRww4oZYlsTslxAfWycDsMzGXY4Qh67G3eHnFULUi2jm4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Defense and plaintiffs have flagged competing motions over expert testimony from a witness identified as Sturdivant. At the June 26 status conference the defense characterized the June 6 filing as partly a Daubert challenge, arguing the expert\u0000cs report was authored by plaintiffs' counsel and challenging the expert's factual basis. Plaintiffs described the defense filing as a Daubert motion and said they would respond on the usual schedule.

The court asked the parties to try to have the matter fully briefed so it could be heard at the parties' next status conference on August 11. The judge also asked the parties to consider availability for a potential Daubert hearing and suggested August 22 (Friday) and August 25 (Monday) as provisional hearing dates, asking counsel to check witness availability and to confer after the July 4 holiday weekend.

The presiding judge signaled an expectation that expert witnesses should appear in person for any Daubert hearing rather than by Zoom, and that if either side proposes rebuttal experts, those witnesses should be available as well. Counsel agreed to check availability and said they would attempt to file responsive briefs in time for the August 11 scheduling or hearing.

Why this matters: A Daubert ruling on a key expert can narrow or exclude testimony that may be critical to proving or defending elements of liability. The court's scheduling and emphasis on in-person testimony aims to make an efficient, evidence-based determination.

The court also told counsel to block out those late-August dates while they confirm schedules so the court can allocate courtroom time and resources if live hearings are required. No Daubert ruling was issued at the status conference; the hearing will be set if briefing and availability allow.","The court and parties discussed a motion filed June 6 to exclude or limit testimony from defense expert Dr. Sturdivant; the judge asked parties to be ready for argument and proposed potential hearing dates in late August.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6552919,"Parties Raise FERC Deliberative-Process Limits; Plaintiffs Withdraw Post-deadline Deposition Notice",567,1697000,2264000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845&start=1697&end=2264","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845/thumbnail_1697000.jpg","/articles/6552919/Michigan/Parties-Raise-FERC-Deliberative-Process-Limits-Plaintiffs-Withdraw-Post-deadline-Deposition-Notice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552919-1a60b64aee63f509b864347bcb48f618/orig.mp4?Expires=1775308707&Signature=AzbDSQ3PiHFdgrJAtmrM6FD04fJeKQisk2S-c0KOQDDSiBRQV9dr45MrDvPYOQVy06hG2SsBOF-GURrc8qITI5w3QxBYO3gXdc9wo1nP6zjE-RizN76g4-jZtjn~wKlyiwhh56Sap62SzcCUvma03JsISDabUJ86USgWjA0aqJoD5jkNB6Stsk4YF~g93dWReCJrLzV~DdhV4yrDiePWiXaHe~ZMdWMxg36WxNi-iXVQM8WyKQYRJfXLmKkwabdDbfY02xbl8maWovGrfiVV~H8N9jWA2nCGyKdkLIwJqOkbWKXqXHg6I74SbcJvHIW5uwEm27ZDjzYNfUSCo-F8Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During a June 26 status conference in the consolidated Great Lakes Energy litigation (lead case 20-094MM), defense and plaintiff counsel debated whether a post-discovery deposition notice for a witness identified as Michael France was timely and properly served. Plaintiffs\u0000counsel later told the court they were withdrawing the deposition request.

Defense counsel objected, saying the notice was served after the case's discovery deadline and, further, that the subpoena was not properly served because the witness and his counsel are in Colorado. Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged the timing but said the notice related to the practical problem that FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) had limited what plaintiffs could obtain from certain federal witnesses and documents because of FERC's handling of critical infrastructure information.

Plaintiffs described efforts to secure records and depositions from individuals listed as defense experts and said they had been told by FERC that some materials and testimony are off-limits for civil discovery on deliberative-process or critical-infrastructure grounds. Plaintiffs said they intended to file a motion seeking court assistance to address whether FERC's limitations prevented discovery and to ask the court to rule on what limited testimony or documents remain available.

At the hearing the court expressed concern about seeking to compel federal administrative materials but said it would consider the parties' arguments. The presiding judge said he would review any motion and the parties' responses before ruling, emphasizing that the issue had been on the parties' radar since early in the case.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel later told the court they had \"decided we aren't taking the dep\" for the originally noticed date and that they were withdrawing the deposition notice. The court directed counsel to either withdraw the request formally or respond to any motion related to the notice; the transcript records plaintiffs' counsel confirming the withdrawal.

Why this matters: The dispute highlights an evidentiary tension in cases involving infrastructure regulated by federal agencies: plaintiffs say FERC's protective treatment of certain records has limited their ability to develop claims tied to agency interactions; defendants maintain those limitations are known and manageable in the case schedule. The court said it would consider briefing on the issue if the dispute is renewed.

The court and counsel also discussed the broader legal framework for subpoenas of federal officers and records, and the judge noted the well-established case law governing third-party discovery from federal agencies. Counsel agreed to bring any contested motions to the court for resolution so the record could be clear.

No formal ruling on FERC's authority was issued at the conference; the immediate practical outcome on the deposition was that plaintiffs withdrew the noticed deposition for now.","Defendants and plaintiffs clashed over a deposition noticed after the discovery deadline and discussed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) limits on probeable materials. Plaintiffs withdrew the specific deposition notice.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":91,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6552924,"Parties Tell Court They Have Stipulation to Certify Class; Judge Limits Liability Phase to Fault, Not Damages",658,1039000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845&start=1039&end=1697","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5084411-8e04c3c3ba209b95f354a123f034f845/thumbnail_1039000.jpg","/articles/6552924/Michigan/Parties-Tell-Court-They-Have-Stipulation-to-Certify-Class-Judge-Limits-Liability-Phase-to-Fault-Not-Damages","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6552924-c9a5beafcb4420ef3e07a256b46c287e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775308707&Signature=a3HxZe3J7Vhu9ByEXFHCSJY2xc5I9O2hd3iqtz-EC7mCnog3FvdbNW4ko9yK3Q9V-mefzWnZkzXeRWH3AI1d6DWaYLD0F800XyQ1XGtE~5vaZdSdFuC8Un7PtNUxWfLeCotvX7tHB1NQIBDxW4TFAG19K1g4CDaX-a4la87td52MSl~hwcyVmeY89P5MymKuMk1KZBxc~rhUvhaGZ5aYXkO5Q2dOvU6fpY6L5-ckFzYiQKI1X0bMRm8KGGdNLZX5lSQqZ5YEMb3eGpZE3UT3w3jSp5ZgJLXJO1yWz5hepCcbdJLy1TuqCh2dI0BIfts64veojhaKYCJHsanL7oDDog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plaintiffs\u0000counsel told a Michigan court on June 26 that the parties have \"essentially reached a proposed stipulation\" to certify a class for the first (liability) phase of trial, and the presiding judge confirmed the liability phase will address fault but not require proof of monetary damages.

At a status conference in the consolidated case captioned Great Lakes Energy et al., lead case 20-094MM, Jason Thompson, representing the plaintiffs, said the parties had worked through \"lengthy discussions\" and were finishing language for a stipulation to present to the court. Thompson asked the court to confirm whether the liability phase would require \"proofs as to harm to property,\" distinguishing between proof of the fact of an injury and expert testimony quantifying damages in dollars.

The presiding judge responded that he did not anticipate requiring proof of damages during the liability phase and that a plaintiffs' failure to offer damages proof in that phase would not preclude seeking damages later if liability is found. \"I would not anticipate that during the liability phase ... we would be requiring proof of damages,\" the judge said, adding that bifurcation was adopted to separate liability from remedy issues.

Why this matters: The court's clarification narrows what jurors will decide in the first phase and may shorten the liability trial by excluding time-consuming expert valuation testimony. Plaintiffs and defendants said they expect to finalize the stipulation and tender it to the court promptly.

Counsel on both sides indicated they accept the court's framing. Plaintiffs' counsel said the parties would finish and present the stipulation \"in short order.\" Defense counsel likewise said they did not expect damages proof in the liability phase and would proceed accordingly.

The conference record shows the court and parties discussing the technical distinction between \"harm\" and \"damages.\" Plaintiffs' counsel described \"damages\" as the expert valuation of diminution in property value and \"harm\" as the fact of an injury under inverse condemnation principles, and sought assurance the latter would not have to be proved in phase one.

The judge asked plaintiffs to finalize the stipulation for class certification and to tender it to the court quickly; counsel indicated they would do so.

The parties and the court also discussed related scheduling and procedural items during the same status conference, but the class-certification stipulation and the court's limitation of the liability phase to liability elements (not monetary valuation) were the central outcomes on this topic.

The conference transcript records the exchange and counsel's agreement that the stipulation would be completed and filed for the court's approval.","Plaintiffs said they reached a proposed stipulation to certify a class for the liability phase of trial. The presiding judge confirmed the liability phase will not require proof of monetary damages, leaving damages for a later phase.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge Orders Shorter Briefs, Sets Trial Logistics Deadlines and Exhibit Rules for Liability Phase

Court and Counsel Set Briefing and Hearing Targets for Daubert Challenge to Expert Sturdivant

Parties Raise FERC Deliberative-Process Limits; Plaintiffs Withdraw Post-deadline Deposition Notice

Parties Tell Court They Have Stipulation to Certify Class; Judge Limits Liability Phase to Fault, Not Damages