United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RULE 30(b)(6)
WITNESSES RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFF'S OCTOBER 4, 2017
DEPOSITION NOTICE AND EXTENDING DATES
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, Judge
filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 22,
2016 alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiff's Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights in August of 2015 during an
incident at Plaintiff's ex-girlfriend's home. On
November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order to Show
Cause, to Compel Deposition and to Extend Discovery.
Defendants failed to file a Response to Plaintiff's
December 12, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause and setting a
hearing for December 19, 2017. The Court's December 12,
2017 Order also required Defendants to show cause, in
writing, why they have failed to provide complete discovery
responses, as well as produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
Defendants filed a response to this Court's order on
December 12, 2017.
present motion, Plaintiff maintains that an extension to the
discovery date is warranted due to numerous difficulties with
respect to the discovery process in this matter. Discovery
cutoff occurred on November 15, 2017.
asserts that he has only just received half of the police
file regarding the shooting at issue in this matter. In
response, Defendants assert that they were recently made
aware of the existence of a “police file” or the
“Homicide File” during a witness deposition,
which occurred on October 17, 2017. Defendants maintain that
they immediately produced the file upon learning of its
further complains that he served extensive discovery requests
in July of 2017, but Defendants have failed to provide any
answers whatsoever, despite a Stipulated Order compelling
production no later than November 8, 2017. Defendants assert
that they produced all of the documents responsive to
Plaintiff's July discovery requests on November 13, 2017,
or two days prior to the discovery cutoff in this matter.
also maintains that he served discovery requests in May of
this year, which became the subject of a motion to compel.
Magistrate Judge Davis ordered Defendants to produce the
outstanding discovery by October 27, 2017, however Defendants
have failed to produce their discovery responses. Defendants
likewise assert that they served responses to Plaintiff's
May discovery requests on November 13, 2017.
Plaintiff argues that the acknowledged shooter, Defendant
Gerald Blanding, failed to appear for his mutually agreed
upon deposition date, and has only recently been deposed in
this matter. Defendants assert that Defendant Blanding was
confused about the location of his deposition and appeared at
the wrong location. Defendants further argue that they
promptly notified Plaintiff's counsel about the
misunderstanding and agreed to bear the costs of the Court
Reporter's “no-show” fee.
Plaintiff asserts that he served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
notice on October 4, 2017, however Defendants opposed
producing the deponents. Defendants assert that they
contacted Plaintiff and indicated that he would need to
narrow his request because “quite
literally, any higher ranking officer within the
[DPD] has decision-making authority” regarding the
subject of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice,
which requested the “[p]erson or person(s) formally
delegated ultimate and final decision-making for determining
discipline [and training] . . . relative to events at issue
in this matter.” Defs.' Resp. at Pg ID 997
(emphasis in original).
August 16, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. In response, Plaintiff has filed a Motion
for Relief Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) because he is
unable to fully respond to Defendants' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment due to Defendants' failure to timely
respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to
amend the pretrial scheduling order provided that the movant
demonstrates “good cause” which means a showing
that the moving party was diligent in attempting to meet the
case management order's requirements. Fed.R.Civ.P.
`6(b)(4). Here, the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for
extending the discovery cutoff in this matter because he has
only recently been served with Defendants' discovery