Beilicki v. Doepker et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel; granting 38 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. (KCas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
RICKIE LEE BIELICKI,
v.

Case No. 1:23-cv-12692
David M. Lawson
United States District Judge

Plaintiff,

BRADLEY J. DOEPKER, et al.,

Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS DOEPKER’S AND DAVIDSON’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF Nos. 36, 38)
I.

Background

Rickie Bielicki is a resident of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, who alleges that
two firefighters—defendants Bradley Doepker and Tyler Davidson—violated his
Fourth Amendment rights when they forcibly removed him from his home while his
detached garage was on fire 150 feet away. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2–3, ¶¶ 1–6). He
also claims that both defendants instigated a wrongful arrest and prosecution by
falsely claiming that Bielicki assaulted them. (Id. at PageID.3–4, ¶¶ 9–11).
In May, Doepker and Davidson served separate sets of interrogatories on
Bielicki. (ECF No. 36-2; ECF No. 38, PageID.257–61). Bielicki did not respond to
either set of interrogatories before the deadline to do so.

(ECF No. 36-3,

PageID.249; ECF No. 38, PageID.263). See generally Fed R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Ten
days after Bielicki’s response was due, Counsel for Doepker emailed Bielicki,
1

asking when he believed he would have the interrogatories “completed and
returned.” (ECF No. 36-3, PageID.249). Bielicki responded that he would mail his
responses within the week. (Id.) Bielicki failed to deliver his responses as promised,
and Doepker’s attorney warned Bielicki that he would “fil[e] a motion” if he did not
receive the responses by July 9. (Id. at PageID.248). Likewise, Davidson’s attorney
warned Bielicki that he would file “a motion,” if he received no responses by July
9. (ECF No. 38, PageID.263).
To date, Bielicki has not responded to either set of interrogatories. (See ECF
Nos. 36, 38). Nor has he replied to Counsels’ emails warning him that they would
file “motion[s]” if Bielicki continued to delay his response. (See ECF No. 36-3, ECF
No. 38). Both Doepker and Davidson now move the Court to compel Bielicki to
answer their interrogatories and award fees and expenses under Rule
37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (a)(5)(A). (ECF Nos. 36, 38). Bielicki did not file responses to
either motion to compel, despite the Court instructing him to do so in its Notices of
Determination Without Oral Argument. (ECF Nos. 37, 39).
II.

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” One discovery mechanism is the
use of interrogatories. Under Rule 33 “a party may serve on any other party no more
2

than 25 written interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). “Each interrogatory must,
to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under
oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).
When a party refuses to provide information requested by another party,
which is thought by the requesting party to be within the scope of Rule
26(b), then the requesting party may move the court to compel
disclosure of the requested information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
Motions to compel may be filed where a party has failed to (1) provide
a mandatory disclosure; (2) answer or admit an interrogatory or
request for admission; or (3) produce discoverable information,
materials, or documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. However, prior to moving
to compel, a party must in good faith confer or attempt to confer with
the opposing party “failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort
to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
Combs v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00130, 2023 WL 9530592, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Nov. 27. 2023) (emphasis added), report and recommendation adopted,
2024 WL 188360 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 16, 2024) (“When a party refuses to provide
information requested by another party, which is thought by the requesting party to
be within the scope of Rule 26(b), then the requesting party may move the court to
compel disclosure of the requested information.”). Simply put, “if a party does not
respond to an interrogatory” then “the party requesting the discovery may move the
court to compel the opposing party to respond.” Hibbs v. Marcum, No. 3:16-cv-146,
2018 WL 953347, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2018).
Here, Bielicki did not respond to either set of interrogatories by the original
deadline. When Counsel for Doepker emailed Bielicki about his failure to respond,
3

Bielicki promised to mail responses within the week. However, he did not do so.
Bielicki also ignored warnings from Counsel for both Doepker and Davidson that
they would file motions to compel if he continued to ignore the interrogatories.
Similarly, Bielicki did not file responses to the motions to compel even though the
Court instructed him to do so in its Notices of Determination Without Oral
Argument. (ECF Nos. 37, 39).
First, “[b]y not filing any proper objections during the response period,
[Bielicki] has waived any objections to the discovery requests.” Hopkins v. Isaac,
No. 16-cv-12064, 2017 WL 9325282, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2017). Second,
both motions are unopposed. Id. As both sets of interrogatories appear to have been
properly served on Bielicki and Counsel for both Doepker and Davidson have
repeatedly reached out to Bielicki requesting responses to the interrogatories, the
Court will GRANT defendants’ motions to compel. However, it will DENY the
requests for awards of expenses because Bielicki is proceeding pro se, and the Court
finds that awarding expenses at this time would be unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(5)(A)(iii). That said, Bielicki is cautioned that continuing to fail to comply
with his discovery obligations could lead to an order requiring him to pay reasonable
expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) or a recommendation that his case be dismissed for
failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
41.2.
4

III.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Doepker’s motion to compel (ECF No. 36) and Davidson’s
motion to compel (ECF No. 38) are GRANTED. Bielicki must fully respond to
both sets of interrogatories within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this order.
Date: August 28, 2024

s/patricia t. morris

Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

5