United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DAVID ST. ANN, Plaintiff
TODD MCLEAN, DEAN POTILA, SAM MORGAN, THOMAS HAYNES, and KELLY BUCZEK, Defendants.
Levy District Judge.
(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.
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,  described as an SRF ARUS; and (4) Obell
Winn, described as the SRF Warden. (See DE 1).
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.)
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.)
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.)
The Instant Motions
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 Motion to Request Additional Interrogatories
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.)
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 ...