Catanzaro v. Carr et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Discovery - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW CATANZARO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CARR, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-14554
DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (DOCKET NO. 48)
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. (Docket no. 48).
Defendant Marble filed a response to the motion. (Docket no. 52). All pretrial matters have been
referred to the undersigned for action. (Docket no. 10). The Court dispenses with oral argument
on the motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). The motion is now ready for ruling pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se who asks the Court to allow him to discover three
categories of information. (Docket no. 48). However, there is no evidence that Plaintiff served
discovery requests on any Defendant. Before filing a motion to compel discovery, Plaintiff must
serve properly propounded discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Discovery should be served and responded to among the parties without court involvement unless
a problem develops which requires court intervention. Plaintiff must attempt to obtain responses
to his discovery requests from Defendants and, if that is unsuccessful, may file a motion to compel
after the Defendants’ time for responding has expired.
The Court has stayed discovery as to Defendants Anthony King, Stephen DeBoer, Robert
1

Carr, Rosana Souza, Cef Suarez, John Hull, William Czachowrski, Linda Adams, Michael Olson,
Rosalie Petty, Nick Ludwick, Angela (nee Brauer) Eichorn, and Patrick Pavlo. (Docket no. 72).
If Plaintiff will seek discovery from the remaining Defendants, he should serve his discovery
requests upon Defendants’ counsel as is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the
reasons stated, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (docket no. 48) is
DENIED without prejudice.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of
this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: September 2, 2011

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Matthew Catanzaro and Counsel
of Record on this date.
Dated: September 2, 2011

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

2