United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PAGE HOOD DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Brandon Maurice
Hemphill's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Docket no. 27.)
Defendants City of Taylor, Taylor Police Department, Brian
Wojtowicz, Jason Hall, and Nick Hill responded to
Plaintiff's Motion. (Docket no. 30.) This matter has been
referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings.
(Docket no. 8.) The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings
and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District
of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). The undersigned is now ready
to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
matter arises from Plaintiff's August 4, 2012
“personal encounter” with Defendants Wojtowicz,
Hall, and Hill, who, at all times relevant hereto, were
police officers employed by the City of Taylor's Police
Department. (Docket no. 1 ¶¶ 7-9, 14.) The
encounter allegedly resulted in the filing of
“falsif[ied] trumped up” charges of armed
robbery, unarmed robbery, resisting/obstruction, and assault
on an officer against Plaintiff, which were eventually
dismissed with prejudice. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff
filed this pro se civil rights action against
Defendants on December 22, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985(3) and 18 U.S.C. §§
241-42, alleging that Defendants violated and deprived him of
his civil rights on the basis of race. (Id.
¶¶ 1, 3, 10, 14-20.) Plaintiff also sets forth
state-law claims of gross negligence and “intentional
infliction of mental and emotional pain.” (Id.
filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery on August 8,
2016. (Docket no. 27.) In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that
he served Defendants with his first set of interrogatories
and requests for production of documents on November 2, 2015,
and that Defendants have failed to respond to those discovery
requests, despite Plaintiff's subsequent letters of
inquiry. (Id. ¶¶ 1-3.) Plaintiff seeks an
order compelling Defendants to respond to his discovery
requests and sanctioning Defendants for their failure to
previously respond to those requests. (Id.
response to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants assert that
they did not receive a copy of Plaintiff's proposed
interrogatories until they received the instant Motion to
Compel and that they have never been served by Plaintiff with
any request for production, adding that Plaintiff has not
attached a copy of his November 2, 2015 requests for
production to the instant Motion. (Docket no. 30 ¶ 1.)
Defendants continue that in spite of the foregoing, on August
22, 2016, they answered the interrogatories submitted by
Plaintiff and voluntarily produced all of the police records
relevant to the subject incident, including the
investigator's report, the felony warrant filed against
Plaintiff, the preliminary examination transcript, and
Plaintiff's written statement. (Id. (citing
docket nos. 30-2 and 30-3).) Defendants therefore request
that Plaintiff's Motion be denied. (Id. ¶
District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2 requires that
“[a]ny discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
26 through 37, shall include, in the motion itself or in an
attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each
interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which
is the subject of the motion or a copy of the actual
discovery document which is the subject of the motion.”
E.D. Mich. L.R. 37.2. Plaintiff neither included a verbatim
recitation of his November 2, 2015 interrogatories and
requests for production in his Motion, nor did he attach them
to the Motion. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff's
Motion on this basis. Additionally, in light of the fact that
Defendants have since served Plaintiff with discovery and
that Plaintiff has made no further contact with the Court
regarding the instant Motion or Defendants' discovery
responses, the Court finds that this Motion has likely been
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Discovery  is DENIED.
TO THE PARTIES
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a
period of fourteen days from the date of this Order within
which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may
be permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
 Plaintiff is currently serving a life
sentence at the Baraga Correctional Facility as the result of
a conviction on charges unrelated to those in the instant
Complaint. See Mich. Dep't of Corr. Offender
Tracking Info. Sys. (OTIS). (The Court is permitted to take
judicial notice of the information contained on OTIS.