United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Linda
V. Parker, District Judge
ORDER
(1) DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, EXTEND
DISCOVERY AND FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO PERMIT
DISCOVERY (ECF 30); (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF 21); AND, (3) STRIKING THE
STATEMENTS OF RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES (ECFS 38,
39)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A.
Introduction
Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of two minors, filed the instant
lawsuit against the City of Detroit and one of its police
officers, Robert Nill, based upon the alleged events of
November 11, 2015, on which date Plaintiff McCann's dog
was killed. (ECF 5 ¶¶ 10-41.) Plaintiffs set forth
five counts: (1) a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant
Nill; (2) a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant City of
Detroit; (3) a respondeat superior claim against
Defendant City of Detroit; (4) conversion; and, (5)
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.
¶¶ 42-84.)
Pursuant
to the November 12, 2019 amended scheduling order, the
discovery deadline is January 13, 2020. (ECF 34.)
B.
Pending Matters
Currently
before the Court are: (1) Defendants' September 20, 2019
motion for protective order (ECF 21), regarding which a
response and a reply have been filed (ECFs 25, 26); and, (2)
Plaintiffs' November 3, 2019 motion to compel discovery,
extend discovery and for Rule 37 sanctions for failure to
permit discovery (ECF 30), regarding which a response has
been filed (ECF 35).
Judge
Parker referred these motions to me for hearing and
determination, and, ultimately, a hearing was held on
December 10, 2019, at which attorneys Diana L. McClain and
Michael L. Auten appeared. (ECFs 22, 31, 37.) Upon
examination at the beginning of the hearing, counsel admitted
that the attorneys had not had a face-to-face, pre-hearing
meeting, which is a requirement set forth in my practice
guidelines. Moreover, the Court explained why the
parties' December 6 and 9, 2019 statements of unresolved
issues (ECFs 38, 39) were non-compliant and were, therefore,
STRICKEN.
The
Court recessed so that the parties could conduct an in-person
meeting. The hearing reconvened several hours later, by which
point the parties had resolved many aspects of their motions.
The parties placed their agreements on the record. As for the
unresolved portions of their motions, the Court entertained
oral argument on the remaining issues, after which the Court
issued its rulings from the bench.
C.
Order
1.
Plaintiffs' discovery motion (ECF 30)
In
their motion, Plaintiffs requested that the Court order the
following relief:
A. That defendant' Nill's deposition goes forward and
that he is compelled to answer questions regarding his
personal ...