Kanuszewski et al

Filing 125

ORDER Granting Defendants' 93 Motion to Strike Jury Trial. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ADAM KANUSZEWSKI,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 18-10472
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE JURY TRIAL
On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff LaPorte, along with Adam and Ashley Kanuszewski, and
Lynnette Wiegand, individually and as parent-guardians of their minor children, filed suit against
the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Nick Lyon (the then-Director of
MDHHS), Dr. Sandip Shah (Director of the Bureau of Laboratories), Dr. Sarah Lyon-Callo (state
epidemiologist), Mary Kleyn (Manager of the Newborn Screening Section), Michigan Neonatal
Biobank, Inc., and Dr. Antonio Yancey (Director of the Michigan Neonatal Biobank). ECF No. 3
in 18-10472. The complaint alleged Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights
(substantive due process rights) by extracting and storing blood spots without sufficient consent
(Counts I and II), violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by extracting and testing the blood
spots (Count III), and violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by indefinitely storing blood
spots (Count IV). ECF No. 26 in 18-10472. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. ECF Nos.
32, 33, 34.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Circuit reversed and remanded
on two claims. First, the parents’ substantive due process claim for the storage of the blood samples
for injunctive and declaratory relief.1 Second, the children’s Fourth Amendment claim for the
storage of the blood samples for injunctive and declaratory relief. The case was consolidated with
LaPorte v. Gordon, 20-10089. However, Plaintiffs in LaPorte have since voluntarily dismissed
their claims. ECF Nos. 114; 116; 118; 120. Discovery is set to close on September 18, 2020. ECF
No. 117.
On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to strike jury demand. ECF No. 93.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs no longer have a right to a jury trial as all remaining claims seek
injunctive or declaratory relief. Id. Plaintiffs agree they do not have a right to a jury trial. However,
they believe “[a] jury right in the form of a potential advisory jury still remains and the needs to
strike the demand is unnecessary until the request for an advisory jury is decided.” ECF No. 94 at
PageID.1481. Plaintiffs do not articulate the reasons why they should receive the discretionary
advisory jury, but rather argue “[a]n ideal time to resolve that question will be after this Court
determines if a material question of fact remains after the inevitable Rule 56 cross-motions being
filed and decided following completion of discovery.” Id. Defendants respond that “the possibility
that Plaintiffs may file [a motion for an advisory jury in the future] is not a basis for leaving intact
a demand for a jury to which Plaintiffs are not entitled.” ECF No. 95 at PageID.1486.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a) states:
When a jury trial has been demanded under Rule 38, the action must be designated
on the docket as a jury action. The trial on all issues so demanded must be by jury
unless:
(1) the parties or their attorneys file a stipulation to a nonjury trial or so stipulate
on the record; or

1

“Blood samples on several occasions were provided pursuant to state court orders . . . and being sold to third party
businesses and researchers.” ECF 26 at PageID.318.

-2-

(2) the court, on motion or on its own, finds that on some or all of those issues there
is no federal right to a jury trial.
The Seventh Amendment provides the right to jury trial in civil cases. However, “[t]here is no
right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment when the case will resolve only equitable rights.”
JP Morgan Chase Bank, v. Winget, 639 F. Supp. 2d 830, 834 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Plaintiffs’
statement that they may seek an advisory jury in the future is not a reason to deny Defendants’
motion to strike Plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike jury demand, ECF No. 93,
is GRANTED.

Dated: September 17, 2020

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

-3-