Mason v. Granholm

Full title: NATHEAULEEN MASON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.…

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

Date published: May 18, 2009

Case No. 05-73943 (E.D. Mich. May. 18, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 05-73943.

May 18, 2009

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

JOHN O'MEARA, District Judge

Before the court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel, filed January 16, 2009. Defendants submitted a response on February 2, 2009; Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on February 4, 2009. The court held a hearing on February 5, 2009, and directed the parties to attempt to resolve their discovery issues. The parties have resolved most of the issues raised in the motion.

Still in dispute are Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatory No. 24 and request for production No. 23. With respect to interrogatory No. 24, Defendants contend that the requested documents are located at the Archives of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries and are no longer in Defendants' possession. The court finds that Defendants are not required to produce documents that are not in their possession or control. Plaintiffs themselves may obtain the requested documents from the Archives.

With respect to request No. 23, the court ordered Defendant to produce departure reports in response to this request on December 10, 2008. Defendant does not want to produce all the departure reports requested, but only those pertinent to the first trial group. The December 10 order does not contain any such limitation. Accordingly, the court will direct Defendant to respond fully to request No. 23 within thirty days.

The parties also disagree as to whether the cost of reproducing audio tapes of interviews should be borne by the requesting party (Plaintiffs) or by Defendants as a sanction required by this court's order of February 14, 2007. Having reviewed the order, as well as the November 22, 2006 order referenced therein, the court finds that the cost of reproducing audio tapes is not clearly placed upon Defendants. The court declines to shift such costs to Defendants at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's January 16, 2009 motion to compel [docket no. 382] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, consistent with this order.