Brown v. Carter et al

Filing 41

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Immediate Consideration--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARNELL BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:14-cv-14350
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.

NICOLE CARTER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION (DE 29)
Plaintiff Darnell Brown, who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, filed a document titled “Motion for Immediate Consideration” on July 6,
2015. (DE 29.) In his motion, he asserts that Defendant failed to respond to his
discovery requests by the discovery cut-off date of June 29, 2015 and asks the
Court to: 1) sanction Defendant in the amount of $3,000 for prejudicing Plaintiff
and making him unable to amend his complaint; and 2) order Defendant to produce
the requested discovery. Defendant, who is now represented by counsel, timely
responded to the motion on August 17, 2015, arguing that he has complied with all
of Plaintiff’s reasonable requests for discovery and asserting that Plaintiff is
engaging in a “fishing expedition” for irrelevant items. (DE 38.) In addition,

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced as a result of the
discovery issues because he may file a motion to amend his pleadings at any time.
On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed his reply, in which he again argues that
Defendant has not complied with his discovery requests and clarifies that he needs
the requested discovery in order to properly amend his complaint. (DE 40.) In
addition, he attaches as an exhibit the discovery requests he has made upon
Defendant, and to which he asserts Defendant has not provided any responses. (Id.
at ¶ 2.)
Because the purpose of Plaintiff’s motion appears to be to compel Defendant
to provide discovery requests, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a
motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Pursuant to
Rule 37(a), a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery
where the opposing party has failed to 1) make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a)
or 2) provide a discovery response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff misstates the discovery deadline in his
motion. The Court required the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) on or before June 28, 2015. (DE 25.) The discovery
period ends on January 28, 2016. The Court did not, as Plaintiff suggests, tell the
parties that “all discovery had to be completed by June 29, 2015.” (DE 29 at ¶ 2.)

2 

It thus appears that Plaintiff is confusing the initial disclosures required under Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) with the remainder of the discovery period.
The initial disclosures required by the Court to be exchanged on or before
July 28, 2015 are the following:
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the
subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to
support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment;
(ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that
the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may
use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely
for impeachment;
(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the
disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and
copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material,
unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each
computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and
extent of injuries suffered.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). A review of the discovery requests Plaintiff
filed as exhibits to his reply demonstrate that the requests at issue are not items
subject to initial disclosure. For example, Plaintiff seeks the production of a video
recording of the restaurant from June 2014 and notes written by a non-party
employee concerning Plaintiff. In addition, he propounds interrogatories related to
cash transactions in the restaurant, the sexual harassment alleged in Plaintiff’s
complaint, and Defendant’s interactions with Plaintiff’s wife and children. (DE 40
3 

at 3-7.) Accordingly, from the information Plaintiff has provided, Defendant has
not violated the Court’s order by failing to provide initial disclosures by the
deadline and the Court declines to impose any sanctions.
It appears that, instead, the parties are having a discovery dispute. The
Court has not been provided with sufficient information, however, to adjudicate
such a dispute. For example, while Defendant asserts that he will respond to any
requests the Court deems necessary, it is not clear which responses have not been
addressed. It is also unclear to the Court whether either side has provided initial
disclosures pursuant to Rule 26. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the
information sought in his discovery requests is relevant, but does not describe how
or to which claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice
to refiling a motion that complies with Rule 37, E.D. Mich. LR 37.1, and my
practice guideline titled “Discovery.” (DE 29.) However, the parties are
cautioned that they are expected to work collaboratively throughout the
discovery process and attempt to resolve any differences before bringing those
issues to the Court for disposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 28, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

5