Dumas v. Hurley Medical Center et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 93 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery of AFSCME. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOWANA SHANELL DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-12661

v.
HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF AFSCME”
Pending before the court is Plaintiff Lowana Dumas’s motion to compel discovery
from Defendants AFSCME Council 25, Local 1603, Deloris Lots, and Patricia Ramirez
(collectively the “AFSCME Defendants”). Defendants filed a response on November 7,
2011, and Plaintiff replied on November 8, 2011. At the direction of the court, the
AFSCME Defendants filed a supplemental brief on November 30, 2011. For the
reasons set forth below, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff served the AFSCME Defendants with a
subpoena directing them to produce “the written report and audio recording for the
AFSCME Local 1603 Emergency Executive Board Meeting which took place on October
04, 2007.” (Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1.) In her motion, Plaintiff alleges that the AFSCME
Defendants failed to produce the requested documents. Defendants contend that
Plaintiff is already in possession of the minutes from the October 4, 2007 meeting and
no audio recording of the meeting exists. (Defs.’ Resp. at 1-2.) On October 2, 2011,
Plaintiff filed on the court’s docket a reply to the AFSCME Defendants’ response to

Plaintiff’s motion for contempt [Dkt. #88] and attached as an exhibit the minutes from
the meeting in question. In their supplemental brief, Defendants indicate that the copy
of the minutes Plaintiff attached is an accurate version of the meeting minutes in
question.
Because Plaintiff is already in possession of the document she requests in the
subpoena, the court will not direct Defendants to produce the meeting minutes. Further,
the AFSCME Defendants have declared that no tape recording of the meeting exists,
and there has been no showing to the contrary. The court cannot order a party to
produce a document or recording that does not exist. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery of AFSCME” [Dkt. #
93] is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 6, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 6, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-12661.DUMAS.Deny.Mot.Compel.Afscme.jrc.wpd

2