United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 85), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL (DES 87, 88), AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION (DE 91)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff,
a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma
pauperis, brings this prisoner civil rights lawsuit
against three defendants, Colter Furst, Michael Thomas and
Nathan Ellis, all Michigan State Police Troopers, alleging
they violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using
excessive force during his arrest on September 4, 2015. (DE
1.) He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition
to compensatory and punitive damages. (Id.)
Plaintiff
brings a motion for protective order regarding his deposition
(DE 85) and two motions to compel discovery pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) (DEs 87 and 88.) Defendants filed a motion
for sanctions and to compel deposition testimony. (DE 91.)
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motions (DEs 85,
87, 88) are DENIED and Defendants'
motion (DE 91) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
II.
Instant Motions
A.
Plaintiff's Motions
On
January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed the following three
motions:
1.
Motion for protective order (DE 85)
First,
Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order seeking
protection from certain questions at his deposition scheduled
for January 25, 2019. (DE 85.) Specifically, he seeks
protection “from being asked questions that would give
the defendants answers to the interrogatories that have been
served” and “from disclosing mental impressions,
trial preparation materials and the reasons that he
requested” certain discovery. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff also objects that the deposition notice, served on
January 16, 2019 for a January 25th deposition, did not
provide a reasonable amount of time to prepare for his
deposition. (Id. at 2.)
2.
Motion to compel responses to fourth requests for production
of documents (DE 87)
Second,
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking to
compel Defendants' responses to his fourth request for
production of documents, served on November 28, 2018, which
seeks seven categories of documents. (DE 87.) Plaintiff
contends that all of the documents sought are relevant and
“directly related to the Troopers, their rules of
conduct that they are expected to follow, their history
within the department and their discipline.”
(Id. at 1.) Plaintiff complains that Defendants have
not responded to these discovery requests. (Id. at
2.)
3.
Motion to compel interrogatories, sets 4, 5, 6 (DE
88)
Finally,
Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel, seeking to compel
Defendants' responses to his three sets of
interrogatories served on each of the Defendants
individually. (DE 88.) Plaintiff served the interrogatories
on Defendants on November 28, 2019, but Defendants have not
responded. (Id.)
4.
Defendants' single response to Plaintiff's three
motions (DE 92)
On
February 11, 2019, Defendants filed one response to
Plaintiff's three motions. (DE 92.) Defendants argue that
Plaintiff's motion for protective order should be denied
because “at least the first part of [his] deposition
has been taken” and Defendants only asked factual
questions regarding the day of Plaintiff's arrest and
Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and did not request legal
conclusions. (Id. at 2.) Defendants also
contend that the deposition notice was timely and no surprise
was involved. (Id.)
As for
Plaintiff's two motions to compel (DEs 87, 88),
Defendants state that the discovery cutoff in this case was
December 17, 2018, and thus Plaintiff's discovery
requests, served on November 28, 2018, were untimely as the
responses would have been due after the discovery cutoff.
(Id. at 2-4.)
5.
...