Southwest Metals, Inc. et al v. Detroit, City of et al
Filing
55
ORDER Setting Supplemental Briefing Schedule, Telephone Status Conference and Interim Order on Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Compel., ( Supplemental Briefing on the Issue of Deliberative Process and Law Enforcement Privileges due by 9/6/2016 and TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 9/23/2016 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti). (See order for details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOUTHWEST METALS,
INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:15-cv-11080
District Judge Marianne O. Battani
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al. ,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE,
TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE, AND INTERIM ORDER ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 34)
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on July 26, 2016, seeking a
Court order requiring that Defendants do the following: 1) produce Sergeant
Rebecca McKay for deposition; 2) produce Sergeant Bernadette Dunbeck for
deposition; 3) supply the last known address of retired officer Derek Hassan; and
4) turn over an unredacted copy of Sergeant Dunbeck’s police report (“the
Dunbeck report”). (DE 34.) Plaintiffs also ask the Court to award reasonable fees
and costs related to the filing of the motion.
Defendants oppose the motion. Specifically, they assert that: 1) Sergeant
McKay’s deposition should be delayed until the conclusion of the parallel state
criminal proceeding at which she will be the prosecution’s lead witness; 2)
Sergeant Dunbeck’s deposition should be delayed until the Court’s decision on the
police report; 3) they will make Officer Hassan available for deposition rather than
supplying his personal information; and 4) the redacted portions of the Dunbeck
report are protected by the deliberative process and law enforcement privileges.
(DE 39.)
This matter came before me for a hearing on August 25, 2015. For the
reasons stated on the record, the Court hereby orders the following:
1. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2016, Defendants’ counsel must
certify by letter that he is entitled to accept subpoenas on behalf of Officer
Hassan OR provide Officer Hassan’s contact information to Plaintiffs’
counsel. If Defendants choose the first option, and that status changes at any
time, Defendants must provide Officer Hassan’s contact information to
Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately.
2. Defendant will produce Sergeant McKay for deposition after the conclusion,
by verdict or plea, of the parallel state court criminal proceeding. Officer
Hassan’s deposition will take place on the same day as Sergeant McKay’s,
the order to be determined by Plaintiffs. Likewise, Defendants shall be
entitled to depose Plaintiff Fawaz at some point after Sergeant McKay’s
deposition.
2
3. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on SEPTEMBER 23,
2016 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the status of the parallel criminal proceeding,
as well as the impending discovery deadline.
4. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 6, 2016, both parties shall file
supplemental briefing, limited to no more than ten pages, on the issue of the
deliberative process and law enforcement privileges as they relate to the
internal police investigative reports like the Dunbeck report. In addition,
Plaintiff shall provide to the Court a redacted and unredacted copy of the
Dunbeck report for in camera review. Plaintiffs will be entitled to depose
Sergeant Dunbeck, but not until after the Court has made its ruling on the
redaction issue in order to determine the scope of the deposition.
5. The Court declines to award fees or costs in this matter pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C), concluding that the legal issues raised
in the motion and response were substantially justified.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2016
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?