Thomas v. Lighthouse of Oakland et al

Filing 78

ORDER re 76 Plaintiff's Objection and Discovery Matters. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDALL THOMAS,
Plaintiff
Case No: 12-15494
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.
LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND
COUNTY, ET AL,
Defendants
____________________________/

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND DISCOVERY MATTERS
On May 8, 2015, the Court held a Status Conference by phone. Attending were
Randall Thomas, in pro per, Thomas Noonan representing Lighthouse of Oakland and
Kathleen Gatti representing the individual defendants.
Before the Court were the following matters:
A.

Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. #76)
Plaintiff filed an “Objection to Order Granting Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsel to

Withdraw and Den[y]ing Motion to Stay Proceeding Without a Hearing.” The Court will
treat this as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated April 21, 2015,
allowing Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw, under Local Rule 7.1(h). For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for reconsideration is decided under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), which
provides:

1

“Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant
motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The
movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the
parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been mislead
but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case.”
II.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff objects that the court did not hold a hearing on the motion to withdraw.

However, there is no right to a hearing in a civil case. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). Also, the Court
held extensive settlement discussions with the parties, including Plaintiff, on the date set
for hearing - and the Court was able to obtain substantiation for the Motion to Withdraw.
Plaintiff asks for a hearing so he can “get a[n] understanding of [his] complete file[.]”
This is not the purpose of a hearing.
There is no right to counsel in a civil case. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261
(6th Cir. 1992). In his Motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff suggests that unless someone
reads material to him, he does not know what is going on in the case. While Plaintiff
does have a reading disability, his filings and participation in Court proceedings belie his
claim that he needs everything read to him. In addition, the Court has already stayed
the case for a substantial amount of time in order to give Plaintiff the opportunity to
obtain counsel; it declines to do so again.

B.

Outstanding Depositions
2

Defendants request to take the deposition of Randall Thomas. Mr. Thomas must
provide dates for his deposition by the close of business Friday, May 8, 2015.
Plaintiff requests to take the depositions of some, or all of the individual
defendants. Ms. Gatti will contact her clients and provide deposition dates to the
Plaintiff by the close of business Tuesday, May 11, 2015.
Once the depositions have been scheduled, parties are to notify the Court of the
dates. The Court will make arrangements for the depositions to be taken at the
Courthouse.
Any party who refuses to participate in discovery, or stalls in scheduling
depositions, is subject to dismissal and/or sanctions.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 8, 2015
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Randall Thomas by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on May 8, 2015.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3