Opinion
Case No. 01-CV-74329-DT.
July 28, 2003.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to produce various documents; compelling Defendant Detroit Police Department (City of Detroit) to permit Plaintiff entry into the lockup at police headquarters pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34; and compelling Defendants Napoleon, Hudson and Cunningham to answer interrogatories.
On November 20, 2001, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe for all pretrial proceedings. On October 15, 2002, the case was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
Defendant City of Detroit filed objections to the request for production of documents and for entry upon land, as well as a response to Plaintiff's motion. Defendant did not specifically object to the interrogatories directed at Napoleon, Hudson and Cunningham. Defendant's objections to the request for production of documents are (1) it seeks privileged material, (2) it is "burdensome, overbroad, and irrelevant," and (3) it seeks material which is part of an ongoing Justice Department investigation.
On March 31, 2003, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order adopting my Report and Recommendation dated February 18, 2003, and dismissing the case as to Defendant Paul Sorce. On July 17, 2003, I filed a second Report and Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants City of Detroit (Detroit Police Department), Benny Napoleon and Art Wimmer, and without prejudice as to Defendants Hudson, Barry and Cunningham, based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). That Report and Recommendation is pending review by the District Judge.
It is not necessary at this time to decide the questions of whether the discovery Plaintiff seeks is overly broad or burdensome, or whether it involves the production of privileged material. If the Report and Recommendation is accepted, the case will be dismissed as to all Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiffs discovery requests are premature. Until all dispositive motions are decided by the District Court, discovery should be stayed. In addition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(E)(iii) exempts proceedings involving pro se inmates from the initial disclosure requirements. Much of the material Plaintiff requests falls within Rule 26(a)(1)(B). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs motion for order compelling discovery is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.