Kensu v. Buskirk et al

Filing 68

ORDER Denying 56 MOTION for Protective Order; Granting 67 Petition for Leave; and Accepting for filing 66 Reply. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

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

Case No: 13-10279
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs
JOSHUA BUSKIRK ET AL,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, FINES AND
SANCTIONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order and Petition for Fines and
Sanctions. (Doc. # 56). Also, Plaintiff filed a petition for leave to file a reply brief (Doc. 67)
and a reply brief (Doc. 66). Plaintiff’s substantive motion claims he was harassed by defense
counsel, during a deposition. The motion details Plaintiff’s version of the events and defense
counsel’s response provides another version of events.
Regardless, Plaintiff’s motion does not make reference to any rule of procedure or any
other legal authority as grounds upon which this Court could grant his motion. The motion states
facts, but is void of a specific legal theory it wants the Court to consider. At best, the motion
requests the Court to “consider the appropriateness of Sanctions against Counselor Farrell for
willful ethical violations, violations of discovery and Depositions Rules and relevant Local Rules
of the Eastern District Court.” (Doc #56, pg. 11)(As it appears in original).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(1) provides:
In General. A request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion
must:
1 

(B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order . . .
Defense counsel provided the Court with a copy of DVD’s from the depositions and
transcripts, for in camera review. However, since the motion did not set forth the legal standard
upon which this Court could grant Plaintiff’s motion, a review of the deposition would be
meaningless.
Plaintiff’s petition for leave is GRANTED; the Court accepts Plaintiff’s reply brief.
Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, fines and sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff may re-file his
motion, but he must provide the legal standard upon which the Court may grant his motion and
the motion must be supported by specific reference to parts of the deposition transcripts where he
claims defense counsel harassed him.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: April 23, 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 April 23, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest

2