United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
E. LEVY DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY  AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR THE COURT TO APPOINT EXPERT WITNESSES
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bobby DeAndre Davis-Bey filed this pro se civil
rights complaint against the City of Warren and two City of
Warren police officers, Mirek Skomski and Jay Allor, on May
12, 2016. (Docket no. 1.) He claims that on March 26, 2016,
he was “falsely arrested and imprisoned for
video[taping] Police Behavior, ” and that Defendants
are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at
4.) Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Compel
Discovery (docket no. 24), and Plaintiff's Motion for the
Court to Appoint Expert Witnesses (docket no.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Motion to
Compel; however, the parties did file a Joint Statement of
Resolved and Unresolved Issues. (Docket no. 29.) Defendant
filed a Response (docket no. 34) to Plaintiff's Motion
for the Court to Appoint Expert Witnesses. This action has
been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
proceedings. (Docket no. 12.) The undersigned has reviewed
the pleadings and dispenses with a hearing pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court
is not ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
March 26, 2016, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with
disorderly conduct and disobeying a lawful command, outside
of a business in Warren, Michigan. (Docket no. 22 at 24.) He
filed the instant civil rights complaint on May 12, 2016.
(Docket no. 1.) He seeks $500, 000 in “compensatory
damages” from each of the Defendants. (Id. at
2.) He also asks the Court to “enlist all of my
substantive rights and constitutionally secured rights are
not violated [sic], breached or abridged. Due Process as
protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights, Human Trafficking, False Arrest
and Imprisonment, ” and that “All city officials
be informed of the law of the land and their obligation to
uphold their Oath of Office.” (Id.)
Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery 
filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on November 21, 2016.
(Docket no. 24.) In the Motion, they explain that they served
Plaintiff with two sets of discovery requests in August 2016.
In September, Plaintiff served Defendants with his answers,
and in October, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter
“outlining substantial deficiencies present in
Plaintiff's discovery answers.” (Docket no. 24 at
2; docket no. 24-6.) Defendants requested that Plaintiff
supplement his answers, but Plaintiff did not, prompting
Defendants to file the instant Motion to Compel.
Defendants filed the Motion, however, the parties were able
to resolve a substantial number of their issues. On January
19, 2017, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order
reflecting the parties' agreement. (Docket no. 30.)
Pursuant to the parties' Joint Statement of Resolved and
Unresolved Issues, the only remaining disputes concern
Defendants' Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8, which provide:
7. For each contact with any police and/or governmental
agency, which resulted, to your knowledge, in the creation,
of a police and/or incident report in the past ten (10) years
state the nature of the offense and the name of the police or
governmental agency involved. For each state whether you were
convicted or found responsible of any crime or offense
related to the contact.
8. Please identify any written claim or lawsuit that you
filed, either by yourself or through an attorney, including
the names of the parties, the Court in which the case
presided and the outcome.
(Docket no. 29 at 3; docket no. 24-3 at 10.)
did not file a response, rendering Defendants' Motion
unopposed. In their Joint Statement of Resolved and
Unresolved Issues (docket no. 29), however, the parties
indicate that Plaintiff's position remains the same as he
originally stated in response to Defendants'
interrogatories. In response to Interrogatory No. 7,
Plaintiff objected “to the extent that it seeks
information neither relevant to the subject matter of this
litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” (Docket no. 24-4 at 5.)
Plaintiff lodged the same objection to Interrogatory No. 8,
but also added that it was “unduly and unnecessarily
burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is
[a] matter of public record, already in the Defendants'
possession, or otherwise readily available to the Defendants,
and, therefore may be accessed and obtained by the Defendants
with less burden than the plaintiffs [sic] can identify and
provide requested information.” (Id.)
scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is traditionally quite broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus.
Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may
obtain discovery on any matter that is not privileged, is
relevant to any party's claim or defense, and is
proportional to the needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
“Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Information need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1). But the scope of discovery is not unlimited.
“District courts have discretion to limit the scope of
discovery where the information sought is overly broad or
would prove unduly burdensome to produce.” Surles
ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288,
305 (6th Cir. 2007).
33 and 34 allow a party to serve interrogatories and requests
for production of documents on an opposing party.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, 34. A party receiving these types of
discovery requests has thirty days to respond with answers or
objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Rule 30
allows a party to conduct a deposition of any person without
leave of court, subject to certain exceptions. Fed.R.Civ.P.
30(a)(1). If the party receiving discovery requests under
Rules 33 or 34 fails to respond properly, or if the person
whose deposition is sought under Rule 30 fails to properly
comply with the rule, Rule 37 provides the party who sent the
discovery the means to file a motion to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3). If a court grants a Rule 37 motion to compel, or if
discovery is received after a Rule 37 motion is filed, then
the court must award reasonable expenses and attorney's
fees to ...