Ouellette v. Beverly Hills, Village of et al

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER Overruling and Denying Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's August 21, 2015 Subpoena to the Beverly Hills Department of Public Safety and 16 Motion to Quash Subpoena or, in the alternative for Protective Order and Granting 19 Motion Asking the Court to Terminate his Present Outstanding Discovery Requests Outlined in in his Subpoena - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL OUELLETTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEVERLY HILLS, VILLAGE OF,
et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-11604
DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S AUGUST 21, 2015 SUBPOENA TO THE BEVERLY
HILLS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [16]
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ASKING THE COURT
TO TERMINATE HIS PRESENT OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS
OUTLINED IN HIS SUBPOENA [19]
Plaintiff filed this pro se prisoner civil rights action on May 4, 2015, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Village of Beverly Hills Public Safety Department and
Lieutenant Michael Vargas subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Docket no. 1.) This action has been
referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Docket no. 13.)
On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff mailed a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or
Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action to Defendant Village of Beverly
Hills Public Safety Department commanding it to produce (1) “[a]ny and all agrements [sic],
contracts, or proposals to house detainees at Birmingham police department;” (2) “[n]ames and
dates of all detainees held in Beverly Hills holding cells from the beginning of using

Birmingham lock-up;” and (3) “[p]ersonnel records of Lt. Michael Vargas” to Plaintiff by
September 19, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. (Docket no. 16-1.) On September 14, 2015, Defendants filed
“Objections to Plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 Subpoena to the Beverly Hills Department of Public
Safety and Motion to Quash Subpoena or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order.”
(Docket no. 16.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ objections and motions; however, on
January 20, 2016, he filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion Asking the Court to Terminate
His Present Outstanding Discovery Requests Outlined in His Subpoena, and Plaintiff Presents
the Defendants Beverly Hills Public Safty [sic] and Lieutenant Michael Vargas Their First Set of
Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and Interrogatories Pursuant to Rule 33
of the Fed. R. Civ. P.”1 (Docket no. 19.) Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s
Motion. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court is now ready to rule pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff’s Motion consists of the following sentence: “Plaintiff, Michael J. Ouellette, by
and through himself, asks the court to terminate his request for documents outlined in his
subpoena.” (Docket no. 19.) The Court presumes that Plaintiff is referring to his August 21,
2015 Subpoena to Defendant Village of Beverly Hills Public Safety Department, and seeing that
the parties essentially seek the same result through their Motions, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
Motion, rendering Defendants’ Objections and Motions moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Asking the Court to Terminate
His Present Outstanding Discovery Requests Outlined in His Subpoena [19] is GRANTED;
1

To the extent that Plaintiff presents Defendants with discovery requests, such a matter is not before the Court, as
discovery should be served upon and responded to between the parties without court involvement unless a problem
develops that requires court intervention. There is no indication of such a problem in Plaintiff’s Motion, and
Plaintiff, rightfully so, has not attached any discovery requests to his Motion. See Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1).
2

Defendant Village of Beverly Hills Public Safety Department is not required to respond to
Plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 Subpoena.
Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s
August 21, 2015 Subpoena to the Beverly Hills Department of Public Safety and Motion to
Quash Subpoena or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order [16] are OVERRULED and
DENIED as moot.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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: April 29, 2016

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

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Plaintiff Michael
Ouellette and counsel of record on this date.
Dated: April 29, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

3