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.

Reid v. City of Detroit

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

November 12, 2019

JUSTIN REID and STEPHEN MCMULLEN, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, STEPHEN GEELHOOD, GREGORY TOURVILLE, STEVEN RILEY, LARRY BARNETT, MATTHEW BRAY, AMY MATELIC, and ARTHUR LEAVELLS, Defendants.

          Sean F. Cox District Judge.

          ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS' “SOURCE OF INFORMATION #2499” (ECF 52)

          Anthony P. Patti United States Magistrate Judge.

         A. Background

         This case is one of several filed against the City of Detroit and others by alleged lawful and licensed operators of marijuana grow and/or distribution facilities. On August 31, 2018, this Court denied a motion for class certification in one such case, which was later terminated by way of a March 28, 2019 stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice and without costs. See, e.g., Davis, et al. v. City of Detroit, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-10547-PDB-DRG [ECFs 168, 172]).

         Meanwhile, the instant and several similar cases were filed. See, e.g., Lockard et al. v. City of Detroit et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-13045-PDB-DRG); Gardella et al. v. City of Detroit et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-13678-TGB-APP); Metris-Shamoon et al. v. City of Detroit et al. (Case No. 2:18-cv-13683-AJT-RSW); and, Frontczak et al. v. City of Detroit et al. (Case No. 3:18-cv-13781-RHC-DRG). In many of these cases, a source of information (SOI) or a confidential informant (CI) is or was at issue.[1]

         B. The Instant Case

         On November 26, 2018, Justin Reed and Stephen McMullen filed the instant case, via counsel, against the City of Detroit and John/Jane Doe Police Officers. In their March 28, 2019 first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading at this juncture, Plaintiffs identify the individual Defendants as Sgt. Stephen Geelhood, Gregory Tourville, Steven Riley, Larry Barnett, Matthew Bray, Amy Matelic, and Arthur Leavells. Although Plaintiffs claim their arrest and detention was undertaken without probable cause (ECF 19 ¶¶ 17, 22, 31), their only mention of an “affidavit” in the operative pleading is as follows:

Plaintiffs recently obtained an affidavit in support of a search warrant for their premises (though Plaintiffs were never shown a copy of same) that was signed by Defendant Arthur Leavells who was criminally indicted and pled guilty for his role in a conspiracy to rob legitimately operated marijuana grow and distribution facilities in and around the City of Detroit.

(ECF 19 ¶ 18; see also ECF 52-2.)[2]

         With the exception of Leavells, as to whom the Clerk has entered a default, Defendants have appeared and are represented by counsel. (ECFs 5-6, 26-28, 37-39, 50.) The Court conducted a scheduling conference on July 30, 2019, and the resulting scheduling order sets a discovery deadline of May 1, 2020. (ECF 36.)

         C. Instant Motion

         On June 27, 2019 - a date prior to the aforementioned discovery conference - Plaintiff's served a notice of taking deposition of confidential informant #2499. (ECF 52-3.) Counsel for the parties discussed the possible deposition of SOI 2499 from at least August 2019 through September 17, 2019. (ECF 52-4 at 2-23.)

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's September 24, 2019 motion to compel the deposition of Defendants' SOI #2499, which Judge Cox has referred to me for hearing and determination. (ECFs 52, 54.) Defendants have filed a response, and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. (ECFs 56, 57.) The parties also submitted a joint list of unresolved issues. (ECF 58.)[3]

         D. The ...


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.