Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al
ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 111 Motion for Leave to File Flash Drive in the Traditional Manner and (2) Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 109 Motion Requesting the Court to Listen to Excluded Portions of the Depositions in this Case and Rule on Including These Missing Parts into, or as Part of the Depositions and Part of the Record. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 14-cv-13979
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
CHARTER COUNTY OF
MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a
MACOMB COUNTY, et al.,
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
FLASH DRIVE IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER (ECF #111) AND (2)
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING
THE COURT TO LISTEN TO EXCLUDED PORTIONS OF THE
DEPOSITIONS IN THIS CASE AND RULE ON INCLUDING THESE
MISSING PARTS INTO, OR, AS PART OF THE DEPOSITIONS AND PART
OF THE RECORD (ECF #109)
The Defendants in this action have filed motions for summary judgment. (See
ECF ## 89-90.) In support of their motions for summary judgment, Defendants have
attached a number of certified deposition transcripts (the “Deposition Transcripts”).
Plaintiff John Greiner has filed two motions that relate to the Deposition
Transcripts. First, he has filed a motion asking the Court to listen to certain audio
recordings that allegedly relate to the deposition testimony and to include the recordings
as part of the depositions. (See ECF #109.) Greiner claims that the recordings contradict
testimony given by the deponents during the depositions. To the extent that Greiner
asks the Court to “include” the recordings as part of the Deposition Transcripts, the
motion is DENIED. Greiner cites no authority allowing a court to add material to a
deposition transcript, and this Court sees no basis for doing so here. To the extent
Greiner is asking the Court to listen to the recordings to determine whether information
contained thereon supports his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motions,
Greiner’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will not consider
the recordings unless and until Greiner properly authenticates them and otherwise
establishes that they may properly be considered in the context of the pending motions
for summary judgment.
Greiner has also filed a motion for permission to file in the traditional manner a
flash drive containing the recordings. (See ECF #111.) The Court GRANTS that
motion. In granting the motion, the Court does not mean to indicate that Greiner has
sufficiently established that the recordings on the flash drive may be considered in the
context of the pending summary judgment motions. Instead, the Court is permitting
Greiner to file the flash drive so that it is included in the record in the event that Greiner
later seeks review of this Court’s ruling concerning Greiner’s request to rely on the
recordings on the flash drive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on May 31, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?