Spencer et al v. DTE Energy Company et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying Defendant's Emergency 85 Motion to Stay of Magistrate Judge's 84 Order. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEWART SPENCER and
SHANNON SPENCER,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-11421
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

v.
DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR STAY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on
March 15, 2016
PRESENT:

Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge

By order dated March 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
granted a motion to compel brought by Plaintiffs on January 19, 2016. Defendants
DTE Electric Company and DTE Corporate Energy Services, LLC (collectively
the “DTE Defendants”) have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order.1 In
1

These objections were filed on March 7, 2016, before the Magistrate Judge issued
the March 11 order granting Plaintiffs’ underlying motion to compel. Although the DTE
Defendants evidently viewed the Magistrate Judge’s statements at the February 22, 2016
hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel as tantamount to an “order” granting this motion,
the Magistrate Judge expressly stated at the February 22 hearing that “the Court will issue

an emergency motion filed on March 14, 2016, the DTE Defendants request that
the Magistrate Judge’s order be stayed until the Court has ruled on their objections
to this order.
As the DTE Defendants recognize, Local Rule of 72.2 of this District
provides that a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion is entitled to
“full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a
district judge.” The DTE Defendants further recognize that in determining
whether to stay the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, this Court must consider, among
other factors, whether the DTE Defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested stay is not granted. (See DTE Defendants’ 3/14/2016 Emergency
Motion, Br. in Support at 7 (quoting Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley School
Board, 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002)).)
Having reviewed the present motion and the underlying record, the Court is
at a loss to see how the DTE Defendants have identified any significant harm they
will suffer, much less irreparable harm, if the Magistrate Judge’s March 11 order
is permitted to go into effect. Under this order, the DTE Defendants must produce

an order memorializing today’s ruling.” (2/22/2016 Hearing Tr. at 18.) Thus, it is
unclear why the DTE Defendants thought it necessary to file objections before this
promised order was issued. Nonetheless, when the Court addresses these objections in a
forthcoming order, it will construe them as directed at the Magistrate Judge’s March 11
order, rather than the Magistrate Judge’s statements at the February 22 hearing.
2

certain internal policy and procedure documents that, in Plaintiffs’ view, were
incorporated by reference into a contract entered into by the DTE Defendants and
a contractor, Monarch Welding.2 The DTE Defendants do not contend that it
would be especially burdensome to produce these documents, such that the Court
should relieve them of this burden unless and until it determines that the
Magistrate Judge’s March 11 order should be upheld. Moreover, while the DTE
Defendants observe that the internal policies and procedures at issue are
“confidential,” (DTE Defendants’ 3/14/2016 Emergency Motion, Br. in Support at
9), the Magistrate Judge expressly stated at the February 22 hearing that the DTE
Defendants would not have to produce these materials until an appropriate
“protective order [wa]s in place” to govern these and other confidential documents
produced by the parties in discovery, (2/22/2016 Hearing Tr. at 16), and this
protective order subsequently was entered on March 7, 2016. Thus, even if it
should turn out that the Court sustains the DTE Defendants’ objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s March 11 order, and that the DTE Defendants need not have

2

The DTE Defendants have produced other contract documents, but have withheld
the policy and procedure materials as purportedly not a part of their contract with
Monarch Welding, and hence as irrelevant to the theories of liability asserted by Plaintiffs
against the DTE Defendants. In their objections to the Magistrate Judge’s March 11
order, the DTE Defendants reassert this argument that their internal policies and
procedures were not incorporated into their contract with Monarch Welding, and thus are
not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against the DTE Defendants.
3

produced the policy and procedure documents at issue, the protective order
ensures that these documents will not be divulged outside the limited circle of
individuals identified in that order. The harm resulting from such a temporary and
limited disclosure would surely be minimal, and not irreparable.
This leaves only the DTE Defendants’ argument that in the absence of a
stay, they would “effectively be stripped of [their] right to have [their] objections
considered.” (DTE Defendants’ 3/14/2016 Emergency Motion, Br. in Support at
8.) The Court fails to see how this is so, and the DTE Defendants do not elaborate
on this puzzling assertion. The Court fully intends to rule on the DTE Defendants’
objections in due course, and the DTE Defendants fail to identify any irreparable
harm they will suffer in the meantime. Rather, it appears to the Court that the only
potential harm they face is the modest burden of producing documents that, in
their view, they should not have been ordered to divulge. The Magistrate Judge
has determined otherwise, and the Court declines to relieve the DTE Defendants
of the modest burden of complying with this order while it considers their
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling.
For these reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DTE
Defendants’ March 14, 2016 emergency motion for stay pending resolution of
4

[their] objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order (docket #85) is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
Dated: March 15, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on March 15, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

5