Opinion
4:21-cv-12290
09-14-2022
ROBERTO GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants.
Matthew F. Leitman, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 30)
Anthony P. Patti, Magistrate Judge
This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' amendedmotion to compel (ECF No. 30), Defendant's stricken response in opposition (ECF No. 35), Plaintiffs' reply (ECF No. 37), and the parties' joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 36). Judge Leitman referred the motion to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 31.) A hearing was held on September 13, 2022, at which counsel for both parties appeared and the Court entertained oral argument regarding the motion.
The Court, by text-only order, required Plaintiffs to file an amended version of their original motion to compel (ECF No. 25) to comply with E.D. Mich. Local Rule 5.1(a)(3). (8/16/22 Text-Only Order.)
As has become a pattern, Defendants' counsel arrived at the hearing ten minutes late without notice to either the Court or Plaintiffs' counsel.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiffs' amended motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows, using the parties' joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 36) as a guide:
• To facilitate compliance with the Court's June 24, 2022 order (ECF No. 22) and the production of medical records related to treatment Plaintiff Clifford Williams received during his stay at the Detroit Detention Center (DDC), the Court ORDERS that Defendants subpoena the records from the MDOC within three days of receiving a medical release form prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.672-674.)
• The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for production of dashcam footage on the basis of Defendants' counsel's representation at the hearing that such footage does not exist or is no longer available under the applicable retention policies. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.674-675.)
• The Court deems RESOLVED Plaintiffs' request for unredacted bodycam footage on the basis of Defendants' counsel's representations that he would be producing such footage on the afternoon of September 13th. The Court will enforce this promise, which is taken as a stipulation. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.675-676.)
• The Court ORDERS that by Friday, September 23, 2022, Defendants identify Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) witnesses competent to testify regarding Topics 1-3 from the Joint Statement (see ECF No. 36, PageID.677), and that by Friday, October 7, 2022, Defendants make those witnesses available for deposition. Further, the Court ORDERS that by Friday, September 23, 2022, Defendants address Topic 4 by producing a sworn affidavit
explaining that responsive documents do not exist and why. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.676-677.)
• By Friday, September 23, 2022, Defendants MUST REIMBURSE Plaintiffs' counsel $228.38 for the court reporter's fee incurred when Defendants failed to attend scheduled depositions. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.679.)
• By Friday, September 23, 2022, Defendants MUST IDENTIFY who of the following remain employed by the City of Detroit or its Police Department-Officer Matthew Dube, Officer C. Stinson, Corporal M. Lawrence, and Officer A. Nelson-and provide Plaintiffs' counsel with contact information for those no longer employed. Those identified as still employed by the City of Detroit or its Police Department MUST appear and sit for depositions on Thursday, October 20, 2022. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.678-681.)
• The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' request to compel responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-6 (see ECF No. 30-12, PageID.620-621) as the Court does not have an adequate record to rule and Captain Lever will address the requests in his deposition. (See ECF No. 36, PageID.681-683.)
• The Court ORDERS that by Friday, September 23, 2022, Defendants produce an affidavit that spells out what happened with the discipline and appeal at issue in the parties' unresolved issue No. 7 with respect to Defendant Mullen, the procedures that were in play (ECF No. 36, PageID.683; see also, ECF No. 30, PageID.471), and any associated documents, if they exist.
The Court notes that following the hearing, Judge Leitman signed the parties' stipulated order extending discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 39.) Finally, the Court awards no costs, neither party having prevailed in full and the motion having initially been filed with a less than impressive statement of concurrence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i) and (C). (See also 8/16/22 Text-Only Order.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.