Hemphill v. City of Taylor et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Compel Discovery - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON MAURICE HEMPHILL,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-14958

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE DENISE PAGE HOOD

CITY OF TAYLOR, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [27]
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Brandon Maurice Hemphill’s Motion to
Compel Discovery. (Docket no. 27.) Defendants City of Taylor, Taylor Police Department,
Brian Wojtowicz, Jason Hall, and Nick Hill responded to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Docket no. 30.)
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (Docket no. 8.)
The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). The undersigned is now ready to rule pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
This matter arises from Plaintiff’s August 4, 2012 “personal encounter” with Defendants
Wojtowicz, Hall, and Hill, who, at all times relevant hereto, were police officers employed by
the City of Taylor’s Police Department. (Docket no. 1 ¶¶ 7-9, 14.) The encounter allegedly
resulted in the filing of “falsif[ied] trumped up” charges of armed robbery, unarmed robbery,
resisting/obstruction, and assault on an officer against Plaintiff, which were eventually dismissed

with prejudice.1 (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action against Defendants on
December 22, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-42,
alleging that Defendants violated and deprived him of his civil rights on the basis of race. (Id. ¶¶
1, 3, 10, 14-20.) Plaintiff also sets forth state-law claims of gross negligence and “intentional
infliction of mental and emotional pain.” (Id. ¶¶ 29-34.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery on August 8, 2016. (Docket no.
27.) In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he served Defendants with his first set of interrogatories
and requests for production of documents on November 2, 2015, and that Defendants have failed
to respond to those discovery requests, despite Plaintiff’s subsequent letters of inquiry. (Id. ¶¶ 13.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to his discovery requests and
sanctioning Defendants for their failure to previously respond to those requests. (Id. ¶¶ 7-10.)
In response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants assert that they did not receive a copy of
Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories until they received the instant Motion to Compel and that
they have never been served by Plaintiff with any request for production, adding that Plaintiff
has not attached a copy of his November 2, 2015 requests for production to the instant Motion.
(Docket no. 30 ¶ 1.) Defendants continue that in spite of the foregoing, on August 22, 2016, they
answered the interrogatories submitted by Plaintiff and voluntarily produced all of the police
records relevant to the subject incident, including the investigator’s report, the felony warrant
filed against Plaintiff, the preliminary examination transcript, and Plaintiff’s written statement.
(Id. (citing docket nos. 30-2 and 30-3).) Defendants therefore request that Plaintiff’s Motion be
denied. (Id. ¶ 10.)

1

Plaintiff is currently serving a life sentence at the Baraga Correctional Facility as the result of a conviction on
charges unrelated to those in the instant Complaint. See Mich. Dep’t of Corr. Offender Tracking Info. Sys. (OTIS).
(The Court is permitted to take judicial notice of the information contained on OTIS. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323
F.Supp.2d 818, 821 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).)
2

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2 requires that “[a]ny discovery motion filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, shall include, in the motion itself or in an attached
memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and
objection which is the subject of the motion or a copy of the actual discovery document which is
the subject of the motion.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 37.2. Plaintiff neither included a verbatim recitation
of his November 2, 2015 interrogatories and requests for production in his Motion, nor did he
attach them to the Motion. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion on this basis.
Additionally, in light of the fact that Defendants have since served Plaintiff with discovery and
that Plaintiff has made no further contact with the Court regarding the instant Motion or
Defendants’ discovery responses, the Court finds that this Motion has likely been rendered moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [27] is
DENIED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen
days from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as
may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: November 3, 2016

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Plaintiff and
counsel of record on this date.
Dated: November 3, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

4