Stevenson v Detroit, City of etal.,

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 49 Motion to Adjourn; DENYING 50 Motion for Sanctions; DENYING 51 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD STEVENSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 11-14111
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
DETROIT POLICE OFFICER LAVAR
GREEN, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADJOURN TRIAL,
DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
I.

INTRODUCTION
On the eve of trial, scheduled for January 2, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Adjourn

Trial, Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are
denied.
II.

MOTION TO ADJOURN TRIAL
In their Motion to Adjourn Trial, Defendants assert the law office is closed from December

21, 2012 through January 2, 2013 because of the Christmas Holiday and budgetary considerations
requiring furlough days. Defense counsel states he has no support services available to timely notify
the individual Defendants as to the scheduled trial date, to prepare trial brief and jury instructions
as the Local Rules require to be submitted on the first day of trial. Defense counsel indicates he is
scheduled to begin trial before the Honorable Patrick Duggan on January 16, 2013.
The Amended Scheduling Order in this matter provided that the Final Pretrial Conference
was set for November 13, 2012 and that the Jury Trial was set for December 11, 2012. (Doc. #42)
The Final Pretrial Conference was rescheduled for November 26, 2012. It was then rescheduled to

November 27, 2012 since defense counsel failed to appear on November 26, 2012. The Final
Pretrial Conference was held on November 27, 2012. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a draft of the
proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order (“JFPTO”) without Defendants’ portion since Defendants did
not submit their portion of the JFPTO to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court allowed Defendants to
submit their portion to Plaintiff’s counsel, directing the parties to resubmit the JFPTO. The Court
also rescheduled the trial date to January 2, 2013. On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Default Judgment and Motion to Strike All Defendants’ Witnesses and Exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 43,
44) Plaintiff withdrew these motions because he did not want to delay the scheduled January 2,
2013 trial date. The Court again held a Final Pretrial Conference for December 29, 2012 since the
parties had yet to resubmit the JFPTO. The Court again directed the parties to confer and resubmit
the JFPTO and to be prepared for the January 2, 2013 trial date. To date, the JFPTO has not been
resubmitted.
The Court finds the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Trial are without
merit. Defense counsel had notice of the January 2, 2013 trial date at the November 27, 2012 Final
Pretrial Conference date. Defense counsel had sufficient time to: notify the individual Defendants
of the rescheduled trial date; to prepare for trial, including drafting briefs, proposed jury instructions
and submit Defendants’ portion of the JFPTO to Plaintiff’s counsel. It is noted that defense counsel
was able to prepare three motions filed on December 27, 2012, even though the law office is closed
and he is without support. As of June 22, 2012, defense counsel had notice of the scheduled trial
date set at that time for December 11, 2012. At all the Final Pretrial Conferences held by the Court,
Plaintiff has consistently indicated he is prepared to go forward with the trial date. The jury has
been summoned to appear on January 2, 2013. Local Rule 38.2 provides that the jury expense may

2

be assessed to one or more of the parties or counsel if the jury trial does not commence as scheduled
or the jurors are not used for that trial. E.D. Mich. LR 38.2 Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Trial
is denied.
III.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s counsel did not present the JFPTO at the December 19,

2012 Final Pretrial Conference even though Plaintiff’s counsel was instructed to do so by the Court
at the Final Pretrial Conference held on November 27, 2012. Defendants asserts that Plaintiff’s
attorney of record did not appear at the December 19, 2012 Final Pretrial Conference but was
attended by an associate who acknowledge an unpreparedness to participate in the trial. Defendants
further assert that the Court instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to hand deliver the Joint Final Pretrial
Order to defense counsel’s office by noon on December 21, 2012 but failed to do so. Defendants
seek sanctions imposed on Plaintiff.
The Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. As noted above, Plaintiff’s counsel
submitted a draft JFPTO without Defendants’ portion prior to the first scheduled November 13, 2012
Final Pretrial Conference. Also as noted, the Final Pretrial Conference dates were rescheduled
because defense counsel could not appear at the scheduled conference. As to handelivering a copy
of the JFPTO, defense counsel should have already had a copy of the Plaintiff’s version of the
JFPTO which was submitted to the Court prior to the first scheduled November 13, 2012 Final
Pretrial Conference. All that is required in the JFPTO to be completed is Defendants’ portion of the
JFPTO, which should have been submitted to Plaintiff well before the first scheduled November 13,
2012 Final Pretrial Conference. Defense has not complied with the court rule governing preparation
of the JFPTO. Plaintiff submitted a JFPTO, without Defendants’ input. Local Rule 16.2 provides

3

that failure to cooperate in preparing the JFPTO or to comply strictly with the terms of the JFPTO
may result in the entry of default judgment, refusal to permit witnesses to testify or admit exhibits,
assess costs and expenses and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Mich. LR 16.2(c). Plaintiff’s
sought default judgment and striking of defense witnesses and exhibits in his withdrawn Motions
for Default Judgment and Sanctions for Defendants’ failure to cooperate with their portion of the
JFPTO. The Court will enter Plaintiff’s version of the JFPTO and will consider further sanctions
against Defendants at trial. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is denied.
IV.

MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants seek to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. The Court denies the motion since

the discovery deadline was July 9, 2012. Defendants waited more than five months after the
discovery deadline to file the instant motion on the eve of trial.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Trial (Doc. #49) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #50) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. #51) is DENIED.

Dated: December 28, 2012

s/ Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing document was sent to parties of record on December 28,
2012, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/ Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the
Honorable Denise Page Hood

4