Bauss v. A-1 Bail Bond Agency, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 4 Emergency Ex-Parte Motion to Order Production of Unredacted Police Report - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Joshua Bauss,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-12533
DISTRICT JUDGE JULIAN ABELE COOK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

A-1 Bail Bond Agency, Inc., et al.
Defendants.
___________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX-PARTE MOTION
TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF UNREDACTED POLICE REPORT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Bauss’s Emergency Ex-Parte Motion to Order
Production of Unredacted Police Report in case number 10-8566 from the Sterling Heights Police
Department. (Docket no. 4.) No response has been filed. Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Brief.
(Docket no. 20.) The motion has been referred to the undersigned for action. (Docket no. 5). 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’s claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 arises from an altercation on June 12, 2010, with a
group of individuals (the John Doe Defendants) hired by Defendant A-1 Bail Bond Agency to
apprehend Plaintiff after Defendant Maddock revoked a bond provided to secure Plaintiff’s pretrial
release on another matter. (See docket no 1 ¶¶ 10 - 19.) It appears that Sterling Heights police
officers arrived on the scene and took the John Doe Defendants into custody. (Id. ¶¶ 17-21.)

1

On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Sterling
Heights Police Department requesting a copy of “all documents and tangible things related to the
incident giving rise to this litigation.” (Docket no. 4 ¶ 6.) Plaintiff filed a similar request with the
Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office on May 22, 2012. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Prosecutor’s office did not
respond, but the Sterling Heights Police Department provided Plaintiff with a copy of the requested
documents; the names and contact information for Plaintiff’s assailants, however, had been redacted.
(Id. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 11, 2012. (Docket no. 1.) The next day, he filed this
ex-parte motion for an unredacted copy of the documents in an effort to discover the names and
addresses of his assailants so that he could include them as parties in this matter and properly serve
them. (Id. ¶ 12.) On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding Defendants
Bob Eskamalji, William Lockhart, Brandon Thomas, and Criminals Apprehension, LLC. (Docket
no. 14.)
Plaintiff contends that he has been able to identify Defendants Eskamalaji, Lockhart, and
Thomas as the individuals who assaulted him on June 12, 2010. (Id. at 2.) Nevertheless, he has only
been able to properly serve Defendants Eskamalaji and Lockhart because he has been unable to
completely identify Defendant Thomas. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that he would be able to properly
identify Defendant Thomas if he had an unredacted copy of the police report. (Id.)
A requests for the production of documents by a third party is governed by Rule 45. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. Even though Plaintiff requested the production of documents from the Sterling
Heights Police Department under the Freedom of Information Act, he has not properly served the

2

Department with a subpoena under Rule 45.1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b). The Court is without authority
to compel the production of documents from a nonparty who has not been properly served with a
subpoena. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Motion to Compel with respect to the
Sterling Heights Police Department.
In Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief, he also requests–for the first time–that the Court order
Defendants A-1, Maddock, Criminal Apprehension, Eskamalaji, and Lockhart to disclose the
identity, address, and phone number of Defendant Thomas. (Id. at 3.) Such a request as part of a
Supplement filing is improper as it was not part of Plaintiff’s Motion. Moreover, a request for
information from another party is governed by Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 - 37. Plaintiff has failed to direct the Court to any prior request for
this information from any of the Defendants whatsoever, let alone a request pursuant to the Rules.
Therefore, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s request as part of his Ex-Parte Motion to
Compel, the Court would deny the Motion with respect to Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex-Parte Motion to Order
Production of Unredacted Police Report [4] is DENIED.

1

Plaintiff does not even indicate whether he has subsequently requested the redacted
information from the Department. Plaintiff did not serve the Department with a copy of the
instant Motion. (Docket no. 4 at 4.)
3

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: October 22, 2012

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 Counsel of Record on this date.
Dated: October 22, 2012

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

4