Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-13979
05-31-2017
JOHN GREINER, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COUNTY OF MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a MACOMB COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FLASH DRIVE IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER (ECF #111) AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO LISTEN TO EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE DEPOSITIONS IN THIS CASE AND RULE ON INCLUDING THESE MISSING PARTS INTO , OR, AS PART OF THE DEPOSITIONS AND PART OF THE RECORD (ECF #109)
The Defendants in this action have filed motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 89-90.) In support of their motions for summary judgment, Defendants have attached a number of certified deposition transcripts (the "Deposition Transcripts"). (See id.)
Plaintiff John Greiner has filed two motions that relate to the Deposition Transcripts. First, he has filed a motion asking the Court to listen to certain audio recordings that allegedly relate to the deposition testimony and to include the recordings as part of the depositions. (See ECF #109.) Greiner claims that the recordings contradict testimony given by the deponents during the depositions. To the extent that Greiner asks the Court to "include" the recordings as part of the Deposition Transcripts, the motion is DENIED. Greiner cites no authority allowing a court to add material to a deposition transcript, and this Court sees no basis for doing so here. To the extent Greiner is asking the Court to listen to the recordings to determine whether information contained thereon supports his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motions, Greiner's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will not consider the recordings unless and until Greiner properly authenticates them and otherwise establishes that they may properly be considered in the context of the pending motions for summary judgment.
Greiner has also filed a motion for permission to file in the traditional manner a flash drive containing the recordings. (See ECF #111.) The Court GRANTS that motion. In granting the motion, the Court does not mean to indicate that Greiner has sufficiently established that the recordings on the flash drive may be considered in the context of the pending summary judgment motions. Instead, the Court is permitting Greiner to file the flash drive so that it is included in the record in the event that Greiner later seeks review of this Court's ruling concerning Greiner's request to rely on the recordings on the flash drive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 31, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on May 31, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113