Siner v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 17 Motion for Discovery - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RODRICK SINER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-cv-13532

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

DETROIT, CITY OF, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY [17]
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Rodrick Siner’s Motion for Discovery
and Disclosure Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (Docket no. 17.) Defendant City
of Detroit responded to Plaintiff’s Motion (docket no. 20), and Plaintiff replied to Defendant’s
Response (docket no. 21). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
proceedings. (Docket no. 4.) The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings and dispenses with
oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). The Court is now
ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action against the City of Detroit and four John
Doe defendants, all of whom are allegedly employed by the City of Detroit Police Department,
asserting that they violated his constitutional rights by arresting, incarcerating, and prosecuting
him on false assault and weapons charges, which were ultimately dismissed.1 (Docket no. 1.) In
his Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, unlawful

1

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility in Harvest, Alabama as the result of a
conviction on charges unrelated to those in the instant Complaint. (See docket no. 9.)

imprisonment, and defamation, for which he seeks more than one million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages, bond fees, and attorney fees. (Id.)
On April 12, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the John Doe
defendants had not yet been named or served. (Docket no. 16.) Plaintiff responded to the Order
to Show Cause on May 2, 2016, and explained that he and his family members have tried on
numerous occasions to obtain the documents related to the criminal case at issue from counsel
and from the state court, to no avail. (Docket no. 18 at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserted that the only way
that he can discover the names of the John Doe defendants is through a Motion for Discovery,
and he asked that the Court extend the time for service of the Complaint on the John Does until
he receives the requested discovery. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Discovery the same day, May 2, 2016, through
which he asks Defendant City of Detroit to provide the following: (1) the names of the John Doe
defendants; (2) a copy of the police report, complaint, arrest warrant, and affidavit related to the
subject case, number 12-007235-01-FC; and (3) any and all other discoverable material related to
the case.2 (Docket no. 17.) Defendant City of Detroit objected to Plaintiff’s Motion on the basis
that it would be futile to conduct discovery in this matter, as Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
statute of limitations and/or because Plaintiff failed to file a proof of claim in the City of
Detroit’s bankruptcy proceeding. (Docket no. 20.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that while his
claims against Defendant City of Detroit and the John Doe defendants in their official capacities
may ultimately be barred by order of the Bankruptcy Court, his claims against the John Doe

2

It is not clear whether Plaintiff first served these discovery requests on Defendant City of Detroit prior to filing the
instant Motion as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34; however, because Defendant City of
Detroit does not object to Plaintiff’s Motion on this basis, the Court will proceed to address Plaintiff’s Motion on the
merits.
2

defendants in their individual capacities are not. (Docket no. 21.) He also argues that his claims
are not barred by the statute of limitations. (Id.)
The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite
broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may obtain
discovery on any matter that is not privileged, is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and is
proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant evidence” is “evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.”

Fed. R. Evid. 401.

Information need not be admissible in evidence to be

discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). But the scope of discovery is not unlimited. “District
courts have discretion to limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly
broad or would prove unduly burdensome to produce.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound
Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Court finds that the content and volume of the information and materials that
Plaintiff seeks through the instant Motion are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case.
The Court also finds Defendant City of Detroit’s argument regarding the futility of discovery in
this matter to be persuasive, but only with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of
Detroit and the John Doe defendants in their official capacities.3 The Court is not convinced that
all of Plaintiff’s claims in this matter are barred on the grounds advanced by Defendant City of
Detroit. It would therefore be premature to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery as futile at this

3

The Court acknowledges that the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has ordered Plaintiff to
voluntarily dismiss his claims in this matter against Defendant City of Detroit and the John Doe defendants in their
official capacities (docket no. 22-2) and that Defendant City of Detroit has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
this basis, which is currently pending before the Court (docket no. 22).
3

juncture based on arguments that have not been fully or properly litigated before the Court or
established as true. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and Disclosure
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 [17] is GRANTED. Defendant City of Detroit
will provide full and complete responses and produce documents and materials responsive to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests set forth in the instant Motion within thirty (30) days of this
Opinion and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will amend the Complaint only to name the
John Doe defendants,4 and file that amended complaint with the Court within sixty (60) days of
this Opinion and Order, upon receipt of which the Court will order service by the United States
Marshals.

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 9, 2016

4

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

No other amendments to the Complaint are permitted at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
4

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 9, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

5