Kensu v. Rapelje et al

Filing 135

ORDER Granting In Part And Denying In Part 106 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

NEIL PATEL – DRAFT 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TEMUJIN KENSU,
Plaintiff,

Case No: 12-11877
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs
LLOYD RAPELJE, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

On November 11, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order regarding

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants Motion was in response to Plaintiff’s “First Set Of In
[sic] Pro Se Discovery Requests” provided to Defendants on November 7, 2013. Plaintiff’s
“First Set Of In [sic] Pro Se Discovery Requests” fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1),
and 34. For that reason, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Protective order with
respect to outstanding discovery requests only.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion

regarding future discovery requests.
The Court orders Plaintiff to re-submit his discovery requests in conformity with the
following format:
1. Plaintiff must distinguish interrogatories from requests for production of documents
by submitting two separate documents.
2. Plaintiff’s interrogatories must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), which states:
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve
on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including

all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be
granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).
3. Plaintiff’s request for production of documents must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
4. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are limited to a time frame of 2007-present.
5. Plaintiff must limit his discovery requests to specific issues related to his claims in
this case. In Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th
Cir. 2007), the court held:
“district courts have discretion to limit the scope of discovery where
the information sought is overly broad or would prove unduly
burdensome to produce . . . Although a plaintiff should not be denied
access to information necessary to establish her claim, neither may a
plaintiff be permitted ‘to 'go fishing' and a trial court retains discretion
to determine that a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.’
6. Since Plaintiff has requested documents in physical form (Doc 106-2 pg. 1), Plaintiff
must pay reasonable copying costs for any documents he requests.
7. Defendants will have an opportunity to object to any re-submitted discovery requests.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: February 14, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Temujin Kensu by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on February 14, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk 

2