Springsteen v. Garrett et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration , 25 Order on Motion to Stay filed by Johnnie Johnson, Cathy M. Garrett, Caven West. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID SPRINGSTEEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-11743
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

CATHY M. GARRETT, LYNN M WADE,
CAVEN WEST, and JOHNNIE JOHNSON,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS
CATHY M. GARRETT’S, CAVEN WEST’S AND JOHNNIE JOHNSON’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter currently is before the Court on a motion for reconsideration filed by
individually named defendants Cathy M. Garrett, Caven West, and Johnnie Johnson
(hereafter “Defendants”) on February 14, 2012. Defendants seek reconsideration of this
Court’s February 3, 2012 opinion and order denying their motion to stay this action
pending purported parallel criminal proceedings. For the reasons that follow,
Defendants’ motion is denied.
In their motion, Defendants assert that they are attaching the proof the Court needs
to grant the motion to stay– presumably to demonstrate that parallel criminal proceedings
against them are imminent. This “proof” is simply a notice of deposition and subpoena
served by Defendants’ counsel on February 8, 2012, on Donn Fresard, Chief of Staff of
the Wayne County Prosecutors Office, and certain questions posed to Mr. Fresard that
were attached to the notice. (See Doc. 26 Ex. 1.) The questions Defendants have posed
to Mr. Fresard are:

a.

Is there a continuing criminal investigation into the Wayne County
Clerk’s CCW Division, as alleged by Plaintiff David Springsteen
and/or the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, including the
Internal Affairs Division and/or any law enforcement agency (state
or federal)?

b.

Was there at any time, a criminal investigation into the Wayne
County Clerk’s CCW Division, as alleged by Plaintiff David
Springsteen and/or the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department,
including the Internal Affairs Division and/or any law enforcement
agency (state or federal) and the same concluded with a finding of
insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

c.

Are Caven West, Johnnie Johnson, or Cathy Garrett (my clients)
named suspects in any active criminal investigation into the Wayne
County Clerk’s CCW Division, as alleged by Plaintiff David
Springsteen and/or the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department,
including the Internal Affairs Division and/or any law enforcement
agency (state or federal)?

(Id.)
Missing from Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is any documentation
reflecting a response to the questions posed to Mr. Fresard by Mr. Fresard or anyone
else– much less a response that would cause this Court to conclude that Defendants are
under investigation. Defendants offer no evidence to support their assertion in the motion
that “[t]hese specific deposition questions to Fresard . . . could not be answered directly
by specifically indicating the name(s) of the ‘employees and/or representatives’ of the
Clerk’s CCW Division, because by doing so, [Defendants’ counsel] was informed by the
Wayne County Prosecutors Office (via the Deputy Chief Bivins) . . . the federal criminal
investigation might be compromised.” (Doc. 26 ¶ 9.) Moreover, any response that the
questions “could not be answered directly by specifically indicating the name(s) of the
2

‘employees and/or representatives’ of the Clerk’s CCW Division,” in no way suggests
that “the federal criminal investigation” concerns Defendants. Similarly, the inability to
answer defense counsel’s broadly framed questions, or even a response indicating in the
affirmative that some type of investigation has occurred or is pending, would not
convince the Court that there is a pending parallel investigation and that the investigation
concerns Defendants.
As such, Defendants fail to convince the Court that it committed a palpable error
in denying their motion to stay. The Court adds that even proof of a pending parallel
investigation is not enough to demonstrate a defect in the Court’s February 13, 2012
decision denying the motion to stay. As stated in the Court’s opinion and order: “Preindictment requests for a stay usually are denied . . . Some courts have expressed that,
where a defendant filing a motion to stay has not been indicted, the motion may be denied
on that ground alone.” (Doc. 25 at 3 (citations omitted).)
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Individually Named Defendants Garret’s, West’s, and
Johnson’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Date: February 27, 2012

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
Jerome R. Watson, Esq.
Adam S. Forman, Esq.
Brian M. Schwartz, Esq.
Ronnie E. Cromer Jr., Esq.
3