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.

Ann v. McLean

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 28, 2017

DAVID ST. ANN, Plaintiff
v.
TODD MCLEAN, DEAN POTILA, SAM MORGAN, THOMAS HAYNES, and KELLY BUCZEK, Defendants.

          Judith Levy District Judge.

         ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES (DE 43) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION/BRIEF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RETRIVAL [SIC] OF DISCOVERY (DE 44), AND PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR STAY OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 47)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         A. Background

         Plaintiff David St. Ann (#741290) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF). On May 15, 2015, while incarcerated at the MDOC's Saginaw Correctional Facility (SRF) in Freeland, Michigan, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pro se against (1) “Arus” McLean, described as an SRF Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor (ARUS); (2) “RUM” Zummer, described as an SRF Resident Unit Manager (RUM); (3) “Arus” Polita, [1] described as an SRF ARUS; and (4) Obell Winn, described as the SRF Warden. (See DE 1).

         On November 6, 2015, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend and directing the Clerk of the Court to delete Defendants Zummer and Winn but add Defendants Morgan and Haynes, both described as an SRF ARUS. (DEs 5, 8.) On October 4, 2016, Judge Levy entered an opinion and order denying Plaintiff's objection and adopting my report and recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (See DEs 16, 27, 28, 29). As a result of that order, Plaintiff's only remaining claims were those against Defendants McLean, Potila, Morgan and/or Haynes “which concern the limited subject of plaintiff remaining at Level IV (or maximum security/disciplinary unit) following the February 14, 2014 expiration of his detention and loss of privileges[.]” (DE 29 at 4.)

         On October 31, 2016, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's second motion to amend the complaint and directing the Clerk of the Court to add Defendant Buczek and Count IV against Defendant Buczek for retaliation in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (DEs 24, 25, 30.) On December 14, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, providing, in pertinent part, that discovery must be completed on or before June 14, 2017, and that the parties shall file dispositive motions by July 14, 2017. (DE 40.) The dispositive motion deadline was subsequently extended to August 11, 2017, on motion by Defendants. (DE 46.)

         On August 11, 2017, Defendants McLean, Potila, Morgan, Haynes and Buczek filed their motion for summary judgment. (DE 48.) Plaintiff filed a 93-page response to that motion on September 18, 2017, and 267 pages of exhibits/attachments. (DEs 50, 51.)

         B. The Instant Motions

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's March 22, 2017 motion to request additional interrogatories, in which he seeks leave to serve additional interrogatories on all Defendants beyond the “25 interrogatory limit.” (DE 43.) Plaintiff also filed a June 7, 2017 motion for extension of time for discovery and to “Stay Defendants' Motion/Brief for Summary Judgment, ” in which he states that he is awaiting additional discovery and asks to “extend time for retrival [sic] of discovery (three months)” and to stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment until September 14, 2017. (DE 44.) On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second motion to stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment until March 14, 2018 for the reasons stated in his first motion and “in order to further gather discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), and to fully undergo convalesce [sic] due to hospitalization and surgery.” (DE 47.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's motions.

         C. Analysis

         1. Plaintiff's Motion to Request Additional Interrogatories is DENIED

         Plaintiff requests to serve additional interrogatories on Defendants and states that “due to the 25 interrogatory limit, [he] was restricted from asking these additional questions.” (DE 43 at 1-2.)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 permits a party to serve no more than twenty-five written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, on any other party without leave of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1). It is within the Court's broad discretion to determine the proper scope of discovery, including the number of interrogatories any party may serve. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). However, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires a court to limit discovery if: (1) the requested discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a more convenient or less expensive source; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit of the discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Leave to serve additional interrogatories has been denied where the requesting party failed to make a “particularized showing” why the additional discovery is necessary. See Burket v. Hyman Lippitt, P.C., No. 05-72110, 05-72171, 05-72221, 2007 WL 2421136, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2007) (Majzoub, MJ) (noting that “[a]n important factor in the Court's consideration of such a request is whether the party has shown the specific content of the additional interrogatories that it ...


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.