Blue v. River Rouge, City of et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying 37 Motion to Stay Discovery - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEXUAL SIN DE UN ADBUL BLUE,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-10526

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE MARK A GOLDSMITH

RIVER ROUGE, CITY OF, et al.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY [37]
Plaintiff Sexual Sin De Un Adbul Blue filed this pro se civil rights action against
Defendants City of River Rouge, River Rouge Police Department, Officer Otis, Officer J.
Copeland, Officer R.M. Miller, Sergeant Mitchell, and John Doe pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on February 12, 2016, asserting claims of false and malicious arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution, among others, with regard to his arrest and prosecution for trespass.
(Docket no. 1.) This action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings.
(Docket no. 7.)
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss on June 6, 2016,
arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are meritless, primarily because there was probable cause to arrest
Plaintiff. (Docket no. 23.) Subsequently, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Stay Discovery.
(Docket no. 37.) In the Motion to Stay, Defendants request an order staying discovery until the
Court renders a decision on their pending Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss.
Defendants make such a request to “avoid the needless expenditure of attorney fees” that would
be spent by responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not responded to

the Motion to Stay, and the time for response has passed. Nevertheless, Defendants inform that
Plaintiff denied concurrence in the relief sought via email, and exclaimed, “Discovery is needed
ASAP.” (Id. ¶ 1; docket no. 37-1.)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss remains pending before this
Court. A cursory review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Defendants’ Motion shows that
the parties disagree as to whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff
for trespass. Plaintiff has filed, albeit without leave of Court, two responses to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss. (Docket nos. 32 and 35.) In his first response,
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motion until after he has obtained
discovery.

(Docket no. 32.)

Plaintiff attached the discovery request that he served upon

Defendants as an exhibit to his response; the request consists of fifteen requests for production,
many of which relate to the issue of probable cause. (Id. at 18-27.)
In light of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to
Dismiss as well as Plaintiff’s discovery request, the Court finds that discovery should not be
stayed pending resolution of that Motion.

Additionally, upon receiving discovery from

Defendants, Plaintiff may seek leave of court to supplement his Response to Defendants’
Motion. Any such request must be filed no later than September 9, 2016, and it must include a
copy of the proposed supplement, which may not exceed seven (7) pages.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery [37] is
DENIED. Defendants are directed to serve responses and objections to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

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: August 25, 2016

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

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record
on this date.

Dated: August 25, 2016

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

3