Coates v. Jurado et al

Filing 148

OPINION and ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 145 Objection to 133 Magistrate Judge's Order - Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMANUEL COATES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-15529
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

JEMER JURADO and CORIZON HEALTH,
INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER [133]
Plaintiff Emanuel Coates, a Michigan prisoner, brought this lawsuit pro se under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Coates alleges that Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P., and Corizon Health, Inc.,
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment
by failing to provide him with a replacement hearing aid. Currently before the Court are Coates’s
objections (Dkt. 145, Obj.) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Opinion and Order
Regarding Multiple Non-Dispositive Motions (Dkt. 133, Order).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court will not disturb the magistrate judge’s decision on a nondispositive matter
unless it is shown to have been “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001).
II. ANALYSIS
The background of the case and the motions at issue is adequately set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s opinion and need not be repeated here. The Court has reviewed the Opinion

and Order, Coates’s objections, and other relevant portions of the record and finds that the
objections should be overruled, as explained below.
Coates’s first set of objections relate to Magistrate Judge Stafford’s decision to grant in
part Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery. The standard for deciding
whether to extend the time to act, when a motion is made before the time has expired, is “good
cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).
Coates first argues that Magistrate Judge Stafford erred when she made reference to a
statement in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Obj. at 2.) Specifically, she said: “In
their January 2, 2015 summary judgment motion, Defendants say Coates still has not responded”
to Defendants’ discovery requests “regarding the identification of his outside treating providers
and employers while on parole, the details of how he lost his hearing aid, and the steps he took to
get it replaced.” (Order at 6.) Coates argues that her reliance on this statement was error because
he had not yet filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, and that motion was not
properly before the Magistrate Judge. (Id.)
First, the Court notes that due to circumstances beyond the Magistrate Judge’s control,
she was ruling in February 2015 on a motion that was filed in April 2014.1 She understandably
looked to more recently filed briefs to ascertain whether Defendants still required additional time
for discovery. Second, she did not make any findings related to the motion for summary
judgment, she only noted that Defendants’ recent filing indicated that Defendants still took the
position that additional time for discovery was needed. Third, since Coates does not argue in this
objection that he had in fact substantively responded to Defendants’ discovery requests, the
Court does not see why it matters how the Magistrate Judge learned that the requests were still

1

This case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stafford in January 2015.
2

outstanding. The Magistrate Judge appropriately extended discovery so that Defendants could
obtain the information they sought.
Nor is Coates’s questioning of the Magistrate Judge’s impartiality well taken. As
discussed, there was no impropriety in the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on Defendants’ recent
statement about the status of discovery. And—as this Court has previously discussed (see Dkt.
144)—the Magistrate Judge did not “justif[y] defendant Jurado’s failure to comply” with a
discovery order (Obj. at 2), she merely found it was not done in bad faith such that sanctions
would be warranted. Nor is she “holding Plaintiff a pro se litigator to a more strenuous standard
of complying with orders of the court than she is willing to hold defendants.” The Magistrate
Judge appropriately and consistently required that all parties comply with their obligations.2
The Court is also not persuaded by Coates’s arguments that (1) Defendants’ request for
extension of discovery was not justified because Coates “had to resort to the filing of a Motion
for Sanctions in order to get the defendants to provide the appropriate release form” for his
medical records, and (2) that the Magistrate Judge did not consider “that Defendant Jurado’s
failure to file timely supplements to Plaintiff’s discovery request[] precluded him from meeting
the Court’s April 7, 2014 deadline for discovery and discovery motions.”3 (Obj. at 3.)
Defendants’ requests seek Coates’s personal knowledge. He can answer questions based on his
own personal knowledge, to the best of his ability, without waiting for Jurado’s responses. But
even if Coates needs Jurado’s review of his medical records to answer Defendants’ requests, that

2

The Court also notes that in the same order, Magistrate Judge Stafford granted Coates’s
motion to extend his time to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Order at
15.)
3
The discovery requests at issue apparently required that Jurado review Coates’s medical
records before responding; for example, one interrogatory asked, “state that upon your review of
plaintiff’s medical records, during June 2012, the records showed that plaintiff had been
provided a hearing aid and batteries for a prolong[ed] period.” (Dkt. 31 at 3.)
3

would weigh in favor of extending discovery as Defendants requested. And it does not alter the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Jurado was ordered to supplement her responses to Coates’s
discovery requests after she received Coates’s medical records (see Dkt. 80 at 9), but she did not
unseal the records because of Coates’s pending appeal of the order requiring that he release his
medical records (see Dkt. 98 at 3). Magistrate Judge Stafford found that Jurado’s decision not to
open the sealed medical records was not in bad faith. Thus it does not constitute “unclean hands”
that should preclude Defendants from showing good cause to extend discovery, as Coates argues
in his objection.
The Magistrate Judge found that the outstanding discovery is relevant to issues in the
case. It is in Coates’s interest to speedily provide all relevant discovery so that his claims can be
decided and any relief to which he is entitled can be awarded as expeditiously as possible.
Coates’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order extending discovery are not well taken and
will be overruled.
Coates next objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding Jurado’s failure to
respond to Coates’s discovery requests within 14 days of receiving his medical records, as
required by court order. These findings relate to three motions: Coates’s Motion to Compel (Dkt.
105), Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 114), and Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 113). Coates
restates the objection this Court already overruled in adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to deny Coates’s Motion for Default Judgment. (See Dkt. 144.) Coates’s
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion for Sanctions is overruled for the same
reasons. And the Court finds that it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law for the
Magistrate Judge to deny as moot Coates’ Motion to Compel because Jurado had already
supplemented her responses to Coates’s discovery requests. (Order at 11.)

4

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Coates’s objections (Dkt. 145) to
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Opinion and Order Regarding Multiple NonDispositive Motions (Dkt. 133).
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 7, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the
attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 7, 2015.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

5