Opinion
23-11490
07-22-2024
QUATRAIL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY VOURHEES, et al., Defendants.
Matthew F. Leitman District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS UNOPPOSED (ECF NO. 35)
Anthony P. Patti United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant Isiah Vorhieshas filed a motion to compel responses to his requests for production, which were served upon Plaintiff Quatrail Smith on January 15, 2024. (ECF No. 35, PageID.207.) The requests sought production of a fully executed medical release and copies of documents which Plaintiff intends to use at trial. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond in anyway: he did not object, nor did he produce the requested documents. (Id.) See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A) (party to whom request for production is made must respond in writing within 30 days of service of the request).
The docket lists Defendant's last name spelling as “Vourhees” but his attorney has brought a motion on behalf of “Vorhies.”
On June 24, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel. The local rules of the Eastern District of Michigan required Plaintiff to file responses if he wished to oppose Defendant's discovery motion. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1) (“A respondent opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and supporting documents then available.”) (emphasis added). A response to a discovery motion must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(B). Thus, in the absence of a scheduling order stating otherwise, Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's motion would have been due on or about July 9, 2024. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's motion.
Given Plaintiff's incarcerated status, the Court waited an extra ten days before issuing this order, to account for delays in the prison mailing system.
Opposition to a motion is deemed waived if the responding party fails to respond or otherwise oppose the motion. See Humphrey v. United States Attorney General's Office, 279 Fed.Appx. 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's discovery motion, Defendant's motion can and will be construed as unopposed.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to compel is (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED as unopposed. All objections to the pending discovery request are deemed waived. Plaintiff must provide all requested documents, including a signed and fully executed medical release, by August 5, 2024. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, up to and including having the Court render default judgment against him. Lairy v. Detroit Med. Ctr., No. 12-11668, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152972, 2012 WL 5268706, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2012) (“As a general rule, failure to respond to discovery requests within the thirty days provided by Rules 33 and 34 constitutes a waiver of any objection.”) (quoting Carfagno v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins., No. 99-118, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1768, 2001 WL 34059032, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2001)).
It is SO ORDERED.