King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) No. 70 at Pg ID 69; ECF No. 72 at Pg ID 3434; ECF No. 73 at Pg ID 3545.) Plaintiffs' response to Davis' sanctions motion was due on January 5, 2021, and their responses to the motions to dismiss were due on January 12. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e). 6 The Supreme Court eventually denied the petition on February 22, 2021. (See ECF No. 114 and accompanying docket entry text.) 7 The City further explained in this motion that it “intends to file a Motion for Rule 11 sanctions (after the safe harbor expires).” (ECF No. 73 at Pg ID 3558 n.17.) On January 3, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an extension of time (until January 19) to respond to Davis' sanctions motion, citing counsel's current assignments and the need for more time to prepare a response. (ECF No. 74 at Pg ID 3598.) The Court granted Plaintiffs' request. (ECF No. 76.) On January 12, Plaintiffs sought an extension of time (also until January 19) to respond to the pending motions to dismiss, again citing the need for more time to research the claims advanced in the motions. (ECF No. 82.) The Court granted this request, as well. On January 14, Plaintiffs filed what was docketed as a response to all three pending motions to dismiss, but the single response brief addressed only the § 1927 sanctions requested in the City's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 85.) On the same day, Plaintiffs filed notices voluntarily dismissing this case as to Defendants (ECF Nos. 86, 88, 90), the City (ECF No. 87), and the DNC/MDP (ECF Nos. 89, 91). Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss Davis a few days later. (ECF No. 92.) On January 26, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the matter on appeal. (See ECF No. 101.) In the meantime, on January 5, the City filed a Rule 11 “Motion for Sanctions, for Disciplinary Action, for Disbarment Referral and for Referral to State Bar Disciplinary Bodies.” (ECF No. 78.) On January 28, Governor Whitmer and Secretary of State Benson (hereafter “the State Defendants”) filed a “Motion for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.” (ECF No. 105.) All sanctions motionsincluding Davis'-were fully briefed thereafter. On June 8, the Court scheduled a motions hearing for July 6 and, on June 17 ordered “[e]ach attorney whose name appears on any of Plaintiffs' pleadings or briefs” to “be present.” (ECF No. 123.) On June 28, Plaintiffs sought to adjourn the hearing due to Junttila's planned vacation (ECF No. 126), a request the opposing parties (except Davis) did not contest (ECF No. 126 at Pg ID 5201). The Court granted the request and eventually the hearing was scheduled for July 12. (ECF No. 147.) Prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs' attorneys (except Junttila) retained counsel to represent them.8 (ECF Nos. 127-140, 148.) 8 During the July 12 hearing, Donald D. Campbell and Patrick McGlinn represented Hagerstrom, Haller, Johnson, Rohl, Wood, Kleinhendler, and Powell, while Thomas M. Buchanan represented Newman. By the time post-hearing supplemental briefs were filed, Wood and Newman had obtained new counsel. (See ECF No. 154, 158.) The Court conducted an almost six-hour virtual hearing on July 12. At the beginning of the hearing, the Court explained that each question was directed to all attorneys and, if no other attorney commented or added to the initial response to a question, the Court would find that all other attorneys agreed with the answer placed on the record. (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5314.) At the end of the hearing, the Court indicated that the attorneys could file supplemental briefs and supporting affidavits (id. at Pg ID 5424, 5506-07, 5513, 5515, 5517), and thereafter entered an order setting deadlines for those briefs (see ECF No. 150). Supplemental briefs were subsequently filed (ECF Nos. 161-62, 164-65), as were responses thereto (ECF Nos. 166-171). No attorney filed an affidavit. 5