*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with a rule 45 subpoena issued to non-party the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) (ECF No. 48), the MDOC's response in opposition (ECF No. 49), and Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 52). A review of Plaintiff's motion – which failed to attach any of the MDOC's responses, in violation of E.D. Mich. Local Rule 37.2, and for which the Court could have denied the motion outright – initially led the Court to believe that the MDOC had simply objected to each request, without response, in an effort to completely obstruct Plaintiff's discovery. See Davis-Bey v. City of Warren, No. 16-cv-11707, 2017 WL 6523645, at *3 (E.D. Mich., Dec. 21, 2017) (in order to address a motion to compel, the Court must know that service occurred on the proper person and when, the exact language of the requests, and the opponent's responses and objections). However, the MDOC, while pointing out the violation of Local Rule 37.2, essentially waived that as the basis for denial of the motion by attaching a complete copy of the subpoena requests, responses, and objections at issue (ECF Nos. 49-2, 49-3), and arguing instead for a denial on the merits. In its own words, the MDOC, “[n]evertheless ... clearly wants to establish their response to this subpoena and have attached the response provided to Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 49, PageID.438.) The Court has reviewed these requests and responses.

In walking the Court through the various subpoena requests and responses, the MDOC correctly points out that in response to a large number of requests, particularly those seeking phone records, the MDOC, despite any objections lodged, made clear that there were no records in existence or to be produced. These include request Nos. 1-12, 17-20 and 30. The MDOC then correctly points out that, “The Court ‘cannot compel a party to provide information that he or she does not possess any more than it can compel that party to produce documents that do not exist ....’ ” Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 569 F. Supp.3d 626, 639 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (quoting Roden v. Floyd, No. 2:16-CV-11208, 2019 WL 1098918, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2019)). For other requests, namely request Nos. 13-16 and 21-28, lengthy objections were lodged, but the MDOC clarified in each case that “[n]o responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of this objection[,]” in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). However, it is unclear from this particular group of responses whether any responsive documents to those requests were in fact found and produced (Nos. 13-16 and 21-28), and so the Court ORDERS the MDOC to SUPPLEMENT those particular responses within 14 days of this order by further indicating whether any documents exist, and if so, producing them or making them available for inspection in a reasonable manner (or making clear that they already have been produced).

As to request no. 29, which seeks emails between the Grievance Manager in the Office of Legal Affairs, the Court agrees with the MDOC that “if any records did exist, these communications would be hearsay and potentially protected by privilege.” (ECF No. 49-3, PageID.468.) Given that the request seeks only communications between these two offices, the Court will not force the MDOC, a non-party, to undertake the burden of finding all such emails and then necessarily having to assert privilege and provide a privilege log for each. Moreover, the MDOC's objection that the June 19, 2017 to August 30, 2022 requested timeframe is too broad for the remaining claims in this lawsuit (ECF No. 49-3, PageID.467-468) – which are now limited to the April 18, 2017 to December 2017 timeframe (ECF No. 26, PageID.241-246; ECF No. 28, PageID.252) – is also well taken.

*2 The MDOC's responses to request Nos. 31 & 32 appear to be the only requests in response to which they refused to produce, and in fact did not produce, on the bases of their objections. The requests each seek a broad array of documents related to the distribution of institutional stationery. The MDOC's objections that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome on their face, particularly for a non-party, are SUSTAINED. Their objections as to relevancy, in light of the now limited scope of this case (which they explained), also appears to be well-taken, and Plaintiff, has not shown otherwise.

Based upon the reply brief, it is apparent that the crux of the dispute remaining between Plaintiff and the MDOC has to do with request No. 33, which seeks inspection of a long series of operation procedure and policy directives for the ARF facility, in response to which the MDOC asserts that unspecified “safety and security” concerns prevent an inspection entailing Plaintiff sitting “down [and browsing] at their computer system[,]” but offers to print whichever pages Plaintiff wants to see, with a full breakdown of the cost of printing each set of pages. The total cost of printing these 249 pages at $0.25 per page is listed as $62.25. (ECF No. 49, PageID.442; ECF No. 49-3, PageID.475-479.) The MDOC also points out that “all current policies are available to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's confinement facility without further production by the MDOC.” (ECF No. 49-3, PageID.475 (emphasis added).) Finally, the MDOC points out that a prisoner must bear his own costs of discovery and that nonparties are not required to fund a prisoner Plaintiff's discovery expenses. Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289 (6th Cir. 1983) (there is no constitutional or statutory requirement to waive an indigent prisoner plaintiff's costs of discovery)[1]; Eubanks v. Corizon, Inc., No. 18-1327, 2018 WL 9651500, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (“Nor are non-parties ... required to subsidize a plaintiff's discovery by producing copies at their own expense.”) (citing Kean v. Van Dyken, No. 4:05-cv-64, 2006 WL 374502, at *4–5 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2006)). Plaintiff replies that if he could only inspect them beforehand, he could determine which ones he wants, and that he would happily “purchase the pertinent pages.” (ECF No. 52, PageID.490.) The Court sees a happy medium. Plaintiff need not “browse” within the MDOC's “computer system,” but he also need not pay for documents that he does not need. The Court orders the MDOC to upload the documents in question to a thumb drive or compact disc (depending upon which is known to be compatible with the prison library's computer) so that Plaintiff may inspect the documents under supervision in an electronic format and identify the ones that he wishes to have printed at his own expense; or, if it prefers, the MDOC may instead exercise the option of printing and producing all 249 pages at its own expense.[2]

IT IS SO ORDERED.