DOE 1 et al v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying Defendants' 82 Motion to Seal Exhibits; denying 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 84 Motion to Amend/Correct Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 13-14356

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS, MOTION TO
AMEND/CORRECT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On May 8, 2014, more than two months after Defendants’ initial motion for
summary judgment which is currently pending before the court, Defendants filed
another motion for summary judgment, raising new arguments why summary judgment
should be granted in their favor as to Plaintiff John Doe 3’s claims.
Local Rule 7.1(a) provides, in relevant part:
The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated motion . . . will be
opposed. . . . If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must
state:
(A) there was a conference between attorneys . . . in which the
movant explained the nature of the motion or request and its legal
basis and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief
sought; or
(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or request, the
movant was unable to conduct a conference.
Defendants failed to meet both prongs of this rule. First, in their initial motion for
summary judgment, Defendants did not include any Rule 7.1 statement. Apparently

cognizant of this defect, Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment
stating:
Counsel for Defendants attempted to arrange a conference with Plaintiffs’
counsel on May 8, 2014 pursuant to ED Mich LR 7.1(a). A call was placed
to Plaintiffs’ counsel Cary McGehee, and a voice mail was left for her, as well
as an email sent to all counsel for Plaintiffs that date explaining the basis for
this motion. However, Defendants’ counsel received no response to the
voice mail or emails that were sent. Therefore, the parties were unable to
conduct a conference regarding the subject matter of this motion and
concurrence could not be obtained.
(Dkt. # 84, Pg. ID 1567–68.)
Rule 7.1 requires more than a pro forma statement of compliance. It requires
actual reasonable efforts to conduct a conference and seek concurrence in the
requested relief. Defendants provided less than 24 hours for Plaintiffs’ counsel to
respond to their request for concurrence before filing their motion with the court. The
court finds Defendants’ efforts insufficient and will deny their motions for failing to
comply with Rule 7.1. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion to Seal Exhibits,” “Motion for Summary
Judgment,” and “Motion to Amend/Correct Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. ## 82,
83, 84) are DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 21, 2014

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 21, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\13-14356.DOE.DenySJPrematureFailConcurrence.jac.wpd

3