United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DISTRICT JUDGE JUDITH E. LEVY
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO
COMPEL [52, 56], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE COURT
TO APPOINT COUNSEL , AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF 
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.) Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery (docket no. 52), Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendants to Answer Second Set of Interrogatories and
Provide Deposition and Trial Transcripts (docket no. 56),
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(docket no. 51), and Defendants' Motion to Strike and/or
for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Brief (docket no. 64).
action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
(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).
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, 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.)
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery  and Motion to
Compel Defendants to Answer Second Set of Interrogatories and
Provide Deposition and Trial Transcripts 
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 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the
parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Id. “Although a [party] should not be denied
access to information necessary to establish her claim,
neither may a [party] be permitted to ‘go fishing,
' and a trial court retains discretion to determine that
a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.”
Superior Prod. P'ship v. Gordon Auto Body
Parts Co., 784 F.3d 311, 320-21 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing
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 the successful party, unless the successful party did
not confer in good faith before the motion, the opposing
party's position was substantially justified, or other
circumstances would make an award unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P.
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. LR 37.2.
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Appointment of Counsel
of counsel for persons proceeding in forma pauperis
is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which states that
“[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1). As the Sixth Circuit has stated:
Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a
constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified
only by exceptional circumstances. In determining whether
‘exceptional circumstances' exist, courts have
examined the type of case and the abilities of the plaintiff
to represent himself. This generally ...