United States of America v. Bischoff

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

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

Case Nos. 95-80889; 12-50875; 12-50877
Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

Michael P. Bishoff and
Suzanne M. Latour Bischoff,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
At a session of said Court held in the City of Port Huron,
County of St. Clair, State of Michigan, on March 25, 2013
PRESENT: HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
United States District Court Judge
Presently before the Court are three filings by Defendants: (1) Motion for Hearing
Postponement (Docket #15 in Case No. 12-50875); (2) Objection to the Magistrate’s Report (the
“Objection”) (Docket #211 in Case No. 95-80889); and (3) Motion to Hold in Abeyance Ruling
on Objection to Magistrate’s Report (Docket #212 in Case No. 95-80889). The Government has
filed a response to the Objection and Motion to Hold in Abeyance.
A.

Motion for Hearing Postponement
The Motion for Hearing Postponement is denied as moot because the Court had

adjourned the March 7, 2013, hearing prior to the Motion for Hearing Postponement being filed.
B.

Objection to Magistrate’s Report
The Court has reviewed the Objection to Magistrate’s Report with respect to the hearing

on the Government’s Motions to Compel, conducted on March 1, 2013. The Court first notes

that most of the objections in the “Objection to Magistrate’s Report” are nearly identical to
objections Defendants previously raised before this Court. Specifically, for the same reasons set
forth in the Court’s February 14, 2013 Opinion and Order (Docket #204 in Case No. 95-80889),
which reasons are incorporated and reiterated herein, the Court rejects Defendants’ objections
that: (1) they did not consent to the assignment of any matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
“Form AO 85”; (2) Defendants’ criminal cases and probations were terminated years ago; and
(3) Defendants were not served by the U.S. Marshal in this case or any accompanying civil case.
The Court also rejects Defendants’ contention that the undersigned did not order the
Magistrate Judge to conduct and determine the motions to compel in this matter, as the Court
specifically referred the motions to compel “to United States Magistrate Judge Paul Komives for
an immediate hearing and determination.” See Docket #204 in Case No. 95-80889. Finally,
Defendants’ contention that Defendant Suzanne Latour Bischoff was served at the wrong address
is without merit. As the Government notes, Defendant Michael Bischoff acknowledged on the
record at the Motion to Compel Hearing on March 1, 2013, that Defendant Suzanne Latour
Bischoff was aware of the hearing and he agreed to accept on her behalf service of the
Magistrate Judge’s March 1, 2013 Order. Moreover, to the extent that the address at which
Defendant Suzanne Latour Bischoff was served was defunct, the Court finds that Defendant
Suzanne Latour Bischoff failed to provide the Court with notice of her change in address, as she
is required to do.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Defendants’ “Objection” to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Order) regarding the Motions to Compel heard at the March 1,
2013 hearing.

2

C.

Motion to Hold in Abeyance
The Court, having determined that the Objection to Magistrate Report filed by

Defendants is without merit, denies as moot Defendants’ Motion to Hold in Abeyance Ruling on
Objection to Magistrate’s Report. The Court is also denying the Motion to Hold in Abeyance
because: (1) Defendants did not seek concurrence from Plaintiff, as required under Eastern
District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), (2) Defendants’ delay in seeking a transcript of the
March 1, 2013 hearing was unnecessary and prejudicial to the Government and the efficient
administration of justice, and (3) a transcript is not required to adjudicate a magistrate judge’s
order resulting from a non-dispositive motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
following motions and objection are DENIED:
(1)

Motion for Hearing Postponement (Docket #15 in Case No.12-50875);

(2)

Objection to the Magistrate’s Report (the “Objection”) (Docket #211 in
Case No. 95-80889); and

(3)

Motion to Hold in Abeyance Ruling on Objection to Magistrate’s Report
(Docket #212 in Case No. 95-80889).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are required to produce financial
documentation and information by April 2, 2013, or appear at a show cause hearing for
contempt on April 4, 2013 if they do not timely produce such documentation and
information, all as specified in the March 1, 2013 Order issued by the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 25, 2013