Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Galinis v. Branch County

United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division

May 11, 2015

Peter Galinis, Plaintiff,
v.
Branch County, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PHILLIP J. GREEN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendants Branch County, Branch County Sheriff’s Office, and Branch County Sheriff C. John Pollack’s (“Branch County defendants”) motion for attorney’s fees and expenses (Dkt. 46), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), relating to their successful motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. 33). They seek $930.00 in fees and $30.40 in costs. (Dkt. 46-1, Page ID 378). Plaintiff objects generally to the award of fees and costs, as well as to the amount sought by Branch County defendants. (Dkt. 56). Having considered the parties’ written submissions, as well as the oral arguments during the March 31, 2015, hearing on the motion to compel, Branch County defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

Procedural and Factual Background

This case arises from plaintiff’s arrest on August 1, 2011, at the Branch County courthouse. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the arresting officers violated various provisions of state law. (First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 25). Plaintiff is representing himself.

On May 12, 2014, Branch County defendants served plaintiff with a request to produce documents. (Dkt. 33-1, Page ID 284-86). Their discovery request was premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (generally precluding discovery until the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)). The parties filed their Joint Status Report on September 15, 2014. (Dkt. 12). Accordingly, the Court treated Branch County defendants’ document requests as having been served on that date. (Amended Order at 2, Dkt. 44, Page ID 340). Plaintiff’s responses were due October 21, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), (d).

On November 7, 2014, having received no response to their document requests, Branch County defendants served plaintiff with a notice of taking his deposition duces tecum. (Dkt. 33-4, Page ID 298-301). Their notice requested that plaintiff “bring with him to his deposition any and all records, documents, reports, and memoranda not produced to date and that in any way relate to the claims involved in this matter.” (Id., Page ID 299). Plaintiff appeared for his deposition, but did not bring any documents with him. (Dkt. 33-5, Page ID 307-08). Plaintiff testified that he had a file of documents concerning this case “about 4 inches thick, ” but that he needed “to go through and sift through everything.” (Id., Page ID 307).

On December 9, 2014, having still not received a response to their document requests, Branch County defendants served their first set of interrogatories and a second request to produce documents. (Dkt. 33-1, Page ID 287-88). Defense counsel included a cover letter, which explained to plaintiff that he had thirty days to respond to discovery requests, and not until the close of discovery (March 20, 2015), as plaintiff had previously asserted. (Dkt. 33-2, Page ID 290). Plaintiff’s deadline for responding to the December 9, 2014, discovery requests was January 12, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); 34(b)(2)(A); and 6(a)(1), (d).

On or about December 22, 2014, more than two months late, plaintiff served his responses to Branch County defendants’ first document requests. (Dkt. 33-3, Page ID 292-96).[1] While it is unclear from the record when plaintiff served his answers and responses to Branch County defendants’ December 9, 2014, discovery requests, plaintiff dated them March 11, 2015.[2] Even giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt that he served his responses on that date, they were nearly two months late.

Plaintiff provided no documents responsive to any of the discovery requests. His answers to the interrogatories were, for the most part, non-responsive.

In each of his responses to the document requests and interrogatories, plaintiff raised a number of objections. These objections were untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(B), (C). Accordingly, they were waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the waiver provision of Rule 33 applies equally to Rule 34); Carfagno v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., No. 5:99-cv-118, 2001 WL 34059032, *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2001) (“As a general rule, failure to object to discovery requests within the thirty days provided by Rules 33 and 34 ‘constitutes a waiver of any objection.’”) (citing Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992); Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. v. Sinibaldi, 821 F.Supp. 232, 261 (D. Del. 1992) (collecting cases)); see also Martinez v. Cook County, No. 11 C 1794, 2012 WL 6186601, *3 n.4 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 12, 2012) (“[C]ourts have generally recognized that Rule 33’s automatic waiver provision applies to Rule 34 as well.”) (citing Autotech Technologies Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 398 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 2006)). Moreover, and for the reasons stated on the record in the March 31, 2015, hearing, the Court ruled that plaintiff’s objections were unfounded. (Order at 4, Dkt. 44, Page ID 342).

In an abundance of caution, however, and giving plaintiff the benefit of considerable doubt, the Court limited its order to compel in several ways: first, it did not require plaintiff to respond to two of Branch County defendants’ interrogatories, and it modified the terms in one interrogatory; second, it ruled that plaintiff had satisfactorily answered two interrogatories; and third, in recognition that plaintiff may have already provided the information sought in one of the interrogatories, it qualified the order accordingly. (See Id. at 5, Page ID 343). Noting these exceptions, the Court granted Branch County defendants’ motion to compel discovery. (Id.).

Discussion

Under the facts outlined above, there is a sufficient basis for awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to defendants. Branch County defendants rely on Rule 37(a)(5)(A), which provides, in pertinent part: “If the motion [to compel] is granted – or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” (Emphasis supplied). There are only three exceptions to this rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i-iii).

Plaintiff does not cite to any of these exceptions in opposing the fee petition here. He does, however, argue that his objections to Branch County defendants’ discovery requests were “based on a reasonable belief of being meritorious.” (Pltf. Resp. at 4, Dkt. 56, Page ID 560). This argument sounds much like the second of the three exceptions: “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). Construing the facts as favorably to plaintiff’s position as reason will allow, it cannot be said that his non-compliance with his discovery obligations was “substantially justified.” Plaintiff was exceedingly late in all of his responses to Branch County defendants’ discovery requests. Even then, he provided no documents and his answers to the interrogatories were, for the most part, non-responsive. Despite Branch County ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.