United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
M. Lawson District Judge
ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART, GRANTING IN PART, and
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DE
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 16, 2017, first amended complaint names six defendants:
City of Taylor, James Pilchak, Matt Minard, Jason Hall, Keith
O'Connor, and Nicholas Sellitti. The facts underlying the
amended complaint concern the alleged events of May 26, 2015.
In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in
(I) excessive force; (II) unreasonable seizure without
probable cause; and (III) constitutional violations. (DE 27.)
before the court is Plaintiffs' May 1, 2017 motion to
compel, regarding which a response and reply have been filed.
(DEs 37, 40, 41). Judge Lawson referred this motion to me for
hearing and determination, and a hearing was noticed for May
30, 2017. (DEs 38, 39.)
date set for hearing, attorneys Amy J. DeRouin and Jonathan
F. Karmo appeared. After engaging in a meet and confer
conference in my jury room at the Court's direction,
during which the parties' attention was drawn to this
Court's decision in Sw. Metals, Inc. v. City of
Detroit, No. 2:15-CV-11080, 2016 WL 5477313, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 29, 2016), counsel for the parties informed the
Court that they had resolved several of the matters that had
been the subject of Plaintiffs' motion. Counsel placed an
agreement as to these matters on the record and will submit a
related stipulation and order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
motion is DEEMED RESOLVED with respect to the deposition of
Edward Shalda, as well as Plaintiffs' first set of
interrogatories Nos. 15 and 16 and the related requests for
production of documents.
the remaining issue - “complete audio and video
recordings of the subject incident, ” which were
arguably the subjects of Interrogatory No. 18 and Request for
Production of Documents Nos. 19 and 28 - Plaintiff's
motion (DE 37) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, no later than June 15, 2017, Defendant City of
Taylor SHALL supplement its written response to Interrogatory
No. 18, signed and under oath, by:
(a) identifying all motor vehicles and
officers at the scene of the events in question;
(b) as to each such motor vehicle or
i. , describing what audio and/or video
recording equipment was present, including but not limited to
any and all “dash cams” and lapel microphones;
ii. listing both whether an audio or video recording was made
and is available from such equipment;
iii. if such a recording was made or is available, indicating
whether it was produced or, if not produced, why;
iv. if such a recording is not available, indicating: why not
(e.g., recorder was out of range and specifying the
length of such range, recorder was not turned on, retention
policies, etc.); whether metadata exists from that
device that will show that an audio or video recording
existed and/or exists related to the subject incident; and,
if so, where such metadata is located; and
v. if information existed at one time but has since been
deleted, then explaining why it was not preserved and when it
was deleted and destroyed.
is shall issue its related deposition notice or notices to
Defendant City of Taylor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)
forthwith, or in any case, no later than June 19, 2017, so
that Defendant may thereafter designate a witness or
witnesses in accordance with the Rule and ...