McCann v. City of Detroit

          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 ...