Parties agree to strike portions of expert transcript; court sets filing schedule

The court and counsel in Northland Family Planning Center v. Dana Nessel on the record agreed to strike specific passages from expert testimony and set a filing schedule for any further disputes over redactions.

The agreement, announced in open court, covered portions of testimony by plaintiff expert Dr. Rubenhorst. Counsel told the judge the parties had conferred and “are in agreement on a portion of the testimony that can be stricken from the transcript,” and provided page and line ranges to be removed from the public record.

The parties said they still intended to preserve appellate arguments but would not oppose the limited in‑court stipulation. Judge: the court confirmed the stipulation on the record and asked counsel for any additional requests regarding redactions. Christopher Braverman, counsel for Director Marlon Brown, asked the court to strike an additional portion (beginning at page 125, line 2, up to the first portion the parties had already stipulated to), and the judge ordered Braverman to submit a short written motion appending the contested pages so the court could rule with full briefing.

The court set the following interim deadlines on the record: the moving party will file its motion “as soon as possible,” with a proposed deadline of end of day the next business day; opposing responses may be due by the end of the following business day (the court later clarified a response deadline through end of day Monday), and the court said it would issue an order thereafter. Counsel additionally confirmed they would preserve appellate rights regarding any exclusions.

Separately, at the close of proofs the court set a schedule for post‑trial filings: instead of closing arguments, the court directed parties to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judge set an initial target two weeks out but granted the parties 21 days from receipt of the final trial transcript to file those submissions.

Why it matters: The specific portions of expert testimony that remain in the record may affect appellate review. The court’s direction that disputes over further redactions be briefed in writing creates a documented basis for the judge’s future order and preserves the parties’ ability to seek review.

Next steps: Counsel for Director Brown must file the requested written motion with the attached contested pages; any responses must follow the schedule announced on the record.