Green v. Southfield et al

Filing 199

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 166 Motion for Reconsideration re 145 Third MOTION for Protective Order , 161 Order on Motion for Protective Order Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Order Precluding Bassett from Acting as Designated City Official filed by Mark LaBrosse, Brian Bassett, Keith Birberick, City of Southfield - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAWN GREEN, Plaintiff, No. 15-13479 v. District Judge Sean F. Cox Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. #166] of my April 21, 2017 [Doc. #161]order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for protective order [Doc. #145]. Motions for reconsideration are subject to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3), which provides: “(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” My previous order [Doc. #161] provided that the Plaintiff could depose a City of Southfield designee under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) to testify, among other areas, as to the -1- polices and procedures to be followed when conducting an investigation and follow-up investigations of serious injury traffic accidents effective on October 4, 2012, as well as treatment of citizens’ complaints. However, the order also provided that Defendant Bassett could not serve as the Rule 30(b)(6) witness, since he is a defendant. Defendants seek reconsideration of the order, stating that Bassett is now a Deputy Chief with the Southfield Police Department, that he has personal knowledge of the relevant policies and procedures, and that “he is the only person left in the Southfield Police Department who has the requisite knowledge and authority to testify to those matters, because all of the other persons that knew of those policies at that time have retired.” Motion, at 13, Pg ID 4205. While it is preferable that an entity produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness other than a named defendant, the Rule does not absolutely preclude a defendant as a witness. Here, Defendants make a compelling argument that there is no other qualified witness to testify about policies and procedures in place in 2012, because all other individuals who might have qualified have since retired. Defendant Bassett, who is now a Deputy Chief, does have that knowledge. I am therefore persuaded that Defendants have satisfied the requirements of L.R. 7.1(g)(3), and that their motion for reconsideration should be granted. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. #166] is GRANTED, and Defendant Bassett may serve as their designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness. To the extent -2- that Bassett has already been deposed as a Defendant, he may be re-deposed on the Rule 30(B)(6) topics as necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: December 4, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on December 4, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager to the Honorable R. Steven Whalen -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?