Pearce v. Emmi
ORDER denying plaintiff's Motion for Clarification 51 , and vacating portions of the court's Opinion and Order 53 granting in part and denying in part defendant and non-party The Oakland County's Sheriff's Office's Motion for Reconsideration/Objection to Magistrate's Opinion and Order 41 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MEGAN PEARCE, individually
and as NEXT FRIEND of
BABY B, her infant child,
Case No. 16-11499
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, (DOC.
51), AND VACATING PORTIONS OF THE COURT’S OPINION AND
ORDER (DOC. 53) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT AND NON-PARTY THE OAKLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE’S OPINION AND ORDER (DOC. 41)
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff Megan Pearce’s
Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration and for Protection Order and Sanctions. (Doc. 51). This
motion arises from a series of filings related to collecting evidence stored
on Cody Fuhrman’s iPhone. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Oakland
County Sheriff’s Office (OCSO) to Comply with the Subpoena to Produce
Fuhrman’s iPhone. (Doc. 15). Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an order
granting plaintiff’s motion February 9, 2017. (Doc. 39). Defendant Michael
Emmi and non-party OCSO thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 41). The Court vacated the order in part and requested additional
briefing on the Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 43). Additional briefs
were filed, (Doc. 44, 45), and oral argument was held on March 28, 2017.
The Court took the motion under advisement and encouraged the parties to
come to a solution on their own. Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Clarification of
the Court’s Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion
for Protective Order and Sanctions” on May 5, 2017. (Doc. 51). This
motion insinuated that the parties were not able to come to an amicable
solution on their own. The Court, therefore, entered an opinion and order
granting in part and denying in part defendant and non-party the OCSO’s
Motion for Reconsideration on May 8, 2017. (Doc. 53). The Opinion and
Order issued guidelines regarding the search of Fuhrman’s iPhone.
Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion on May 11, 2017. (Doc.
54). Plaintiff filed a reply on July 18, 2017. (Doc. 60). There, plaintiff
stated that the OCSO relinquished possession of Fuhrman’s phone. (Doc.
60 at PageID 575). The iPhone is now in Fuhrman’s possession. (Id.).
Plaintiff argues that the OCSO has now abandoned its claim that it must
preserve evidence on the iPhone that relates to its investigation against
Fuhrman. Plaintiff, therefore, asserts that the Court should vacate the
provisions of the May 5, 2017 Order, Doc. 53), that relate to the OCSO.
The Court agrees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s order that an OCSO
representative produce Fuhrman’s iPhone to Mark St. Peter is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s order requiring St. Peter
to download a copy of the iPhone’s memory and provide it to the OCSO is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s order permitted the
OCSO to remove the iPhone’s SIM card is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s order requiring the
iPhone to be returned to the OCSO immediately following the examination
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the OCSO is not permitted to have a
representative attend St. Peter’s examination.
The remainder of the Court’s Opinion and Order, (Doc. 53), stands.
Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, (Doc. 51), is DENIED. The clarification
plaintiff sought was delivered by the Court’s Opinion and Order, (Doc. 53),
as well as the revisions in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?