White v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 81

ORDER Adopting 61 Report and Recommendation granting 56 Motion for Sanctions filed by Kevin White, and denying 55 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Detroit, City of, Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN WHITE,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 09-cv-12911
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
MAG. JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

vs.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT’S MOTION
FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES
I.

Introduction
Before the Court is defendant City of Detroit’s (the “City”) objections to Magistrate

Judge Majzoub’s September 11, 2012 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [docket entries 61
and 77]. The magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant plaintiff’s motion for sanctions
[docket entry 56] and deny the City’s motion for enlargement of time to respond to
interrogatories and requests for document production [docket entry 57]. Since the Court has
reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and finds that the magistrate
judge’s recitation of the underlying facts is accurate, the Court will adopt her summary of the
factual record as it appears on pages 3 and 4 of the R&R.
In its objections, the City contends that it responded to plaintiff’s request for
interrogatories and requests for document production prior the issuance of the magistrate judge’s
-1-

R&R, thereby rendering it moot. It further argues that plaintiff had a duty to inform “the Court
that the discovery requests were received and/or explain to the Court why any answer was not
full and complete.”
II.

Analysis
Pursuant to its de novo standard of review, the Court finds that the magistrate judge’s

conclusions are correct. The City’s claim that it responded to plaintiff’s request for
interrogatories and requests for document production prior the issuance of the magistrate judge’s
R&R is wholly unsubstantiated. The City’s attorneys could have easily attached a copy of their
alleged response to plaintiff’s discovery requests with proof of service, but inexplicably failed to
do so. Moreover, the City provides no compelling reason why it neglected to inform the
magistrate judge that it had, in fact, responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests, especially when
faced with the prospect of sanctions.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City’s objections are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City’s motion for enlargement of time to respond
to interrogatories and requests for document production is denied.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City is barred from using any discovery material
that should have been produced in response to plaintiff’s March 15, 2012 discovery request.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded reasonable costs and attorneys’
fees resulting from the City’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s March 15, 2012 discovery request.

S/ Bernard A. Friedman
______________________________________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 29, 2013
Detroit, Michigan

-3-