Parker, Linda V., United States District Judge
Court declined to enter sanctions against plaintiff or dismiss the matter in a section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action where plaintiff failed to respond to defendants' discovery requests after defendant made multiple inquiries.
Plaintiff brought this case against the city following the "treatment of Plaintiff at the hands of the City of Hamtramck police officers." Defendants brought a motion for involuntary dismissal after plaintiff failed to answer requests for production even after multiple follow up letters, objected to producing cell phone records, tax returns, and copies of recent social media postings on Facebook, and did not produce credit card statements or medical records as he had agreed to do. Defendants had previously filed a motion to compel, but the court had not entered any order or warning that plaintiff had violated by his failure to produce discovery.
The court analyzed the facts and its ability to dismiss the case under Rule 37 and declined to dismiss the case:
Further, having reviewed the motion to compel and motion for involuntary dismissal, it is readily apparent to the Court that in these motions, Defendants do not request that the Court order Plaintiff to produce any specific documents or discovery items. The Court only learned of which documents Defendants might potentially request that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide through its review of the deposition transcript, which Defendants attached to the motion for involuntary dismissal. (ECF No. 37–2.) It would have been more appropriate for Defendants to have filed a motion to compel discovery following the deposition of Plaintiff, rather than filing a motion for involuntary dismissal.In addition to the fact that Defendants' motion to compel and motion for involuntary dismissal do not articulate what specific documents are needed from Plaintiff, Defendants do not articulate in their motions the relevancy of the documents at issue or why Plaintiff's objections to producing the requested documents are not warranted. Because Defendants have not filed a motion to compel and have not demonstrated, in a motion to compel, a showing as to (1) why the documents and/or discovery items are needed; (2) how the documents and/or discovery are relevant; and (3) how Plaintiff's objections to production are futile, the Court is without sufficient information to make a determination as to whether Plaintiff should be ordered to produce the discovery at issue. Thus, the Court will make no such determination until a motion to compel containing the requisite information is filed by Defendants.
v.
CITY OF HAMTRAMCK et al., Defendants
Counsel
Nykoriak P. Taras, Hamtramck, MI, pro se.John T. Mihelick, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., Troy, MI, for Defendants.