Searcy et al v. Macomb County Jail et al

Filing 278

ORDER DENYING 277 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAVELLE SEARCY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No.: 10-11242
Honorable Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

MACOMB COUNTY JAIL,
et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 277]
On June 1, 2015, this Court entered an order granting Defendant
Macomb County’s motion to take Plaintiff Lavelle Searcy’s deposition
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2). [R. 273]. On June
16, 2015, Searcy objected to the Order, arguing that he had not received
the County’s motion and, although he was not necessarily objecting to the
deposition itself, (scheduled for June 19, 2015), he wanted to understand
the content of the motion before agreeing to it. [R. 275]. No response to
this objection was filed and to date the objection has not been ruled upon.
On June 29, 2015, Searcy moved to strike the June 19, 2015
deposition, arguing that the County should not have proceeded in the face

of his pending objections. 1 He further notes that the Court has not yet
ruled upon his pending motion to compel (to which a response is not yet
due), inferring that because the County has arguably not complied with his
discovery demands, he could not prepare for his deposition and should not
have been obligated to attend at this juncture. The Court denies Searcy’s
motion to strike.
First, although Searcy objected to this Court’s June 1 Order, under
the local rules of this District, the Order “remains in full force and effect”
and requires compliance therewith “unless and until” the objections to it are
sustained or the proceeding is stayed. E.D. Mich. LR 72.2. Since the
Court did not stay the deposition at any time prior thereto (Searcy’s
objections being received by the Court three days prior to the deposition
date), he had no basis upon which to refuse the deposition on the date it
was to be conducted. 2
Second, contrary to Searcy’s argument, discovery is not a tit-for-tat
process. See Local Union No. 40 of the Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural &

1

It is unclear whether the deposition went forward as scheduled on June
19, 2015. Searcy claims that Defendants did appear at the prison for the
deposition, but the remainder of his motion suggests that he may have
objected to the deposition in its entirety and not answered questions.
2
Even if the Court characterized the instant motion as one to stay the
deposition, it would nevertheless be denied as it fails to identify any
credible prejudice that would result from the deposition proceeding.
2

Ornamental Iron Workers v. Car-Win Constr., Inc., No. 12-4854, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 19959, at *49, 2015 WL 690811 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2015)
adopted by ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 690811 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18,
2015) (collecting cases). Searcy is not entitled to refuse the deposition
simply because he does not believe the County has been fully compliant
with its own discovery obligations.
Further, Searcy’s claim that his lack of discovery left him unprepared
for the deposition falls flat. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) was
intended “to eliminate any fixed priority in the sequence of discovery” and
there is no requirement that all written discovery be completed prior to the
commencement of depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee
Notes to the 1970 Amendments. Finally, Searcy fails to articulate how the
discovery he has requested would be necessary for him to accurately
answer the County’s questions. Therefore, his motion to strike [R. 277] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

3

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 30, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

4