Campbell v. Mack et al

Filing 68

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 64 Objections to Magistrate Judge's November 7, 2017, Discovery Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-12922
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
DANIEL MACK, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S NOVEMBER 7, 2017, DISCOVERY ORDER (ECF #64)
In this civil-rights action, Plaintiff Kevin Campbell alleges that the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they stopped, arrested, and
subsequently strip-searched him. The parties are now engaged in discovery. On
March 31, 2017, and June 1, 2017, Campbell filed motions in which he asked the
Court to compel Defendants to produce certain information and documents. (See
ECF ## 37, 48.) The Court referred these motions to the assigned Magistrate Judge.
(See ECF ## 38, 49.) On November 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted the
motions in part and denied them in part (the “Magistrate’s Order”). (See ECF #62.)
Campbell has filed now filed objections to the Magistrate’s Order (the
“Objections”). (See ECF #65.) For the reasons that follow, the Objections are
OVERRULED.

1

I
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has the authority “to hear
and determine [most] pretrial matter[s] pending before the court.” Parties may
object to such orders within fourteen days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Upon receiving
objections to a non-dispositive order,“[t]he district court judge to whom the case is
assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of
the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.
See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial
matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law”); United States v. Curtis, 237
F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001) (same).
II
Campbell has raised four objections to the Magistrate’s Order. None persuade
the Court that the Magistrate Judge erred.
A
Campbell first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s refusal to order the
Defendants to produce recordings of certain witness statements. (See Objections,
ECF #64 at Pg. ID 510.) Defendants have nonetheless produced the recordings. (See
Def.s’ Resp. to Objections, ECF #65 at Pg. ID 582; ECF #65-2.) This objection is
therefore OVERRULED AS MOOT.

2

B
Campbell next contends that the Magistrate Judge wrongly refused to require
Defendants to identify a second individual subjected to a strip search by Defendant
Daniel Mack at a different time. (See Objections, ECF #64 at Pg. ID 511-13.)
Campbell argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the decision
in Whittum v. Saginaw County, 2005 WL 3271810 (E.D. Nov. Nov. 22, 2005),
supported her decision not to require identification of the second individual. The
Court disagrees.
Whittum was a putative class action challenging strip searches and other
actions by certain police officers.

The named plaintiff sought to compel the

production of (among other things) “information about inmates that [were] not
named as plaintiffs in [that] case.” Id. at *5. Another Judge of this Court declined
to compel that production because – although the information could potentially have
been relevant to claims of putative class members – the requested information was
not relevant to the named plaintiff’s individual claim. Id. Campbell insists that
Whittum is inapplicable here because the Court in that case was primarily focused
on the fact that the discovery at issue had been initially requested to “develop issues
pertaining to class certification,” which was subsequently denied. Id. at *3. But, as
noted above, the Court in Whittum did not confine its analysis to class action issues
and, in fact, determined that the requested discovery was not relevant to the named

3

plaintiff’s individual claim. Therefore, it was not error for the Magistrate Judge to
rely on Whittum.
Campbell also argues that the identity of the strip-searched individual is
discoverable because it is “relevant to show custom, policy or practice by a
municipality.” (Objections, ECF #64 at Pg. ID 513.) In support of this argument,
Campbell relies upon the Court’s decision in Perry v. City of Pontiac, 2011 WL
4345279 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2011). In Perry, another Judge of this Court ordered
the defendants to produce documents related to an internal investigation of an
excessive force complaint filed by a third-party because “[a]dditional incidents of
excessive force could be highly indicative of a failure to train.” Id. at *3. But in this
case, Defendants have produced “a copy of the incident and investigation report
relative to the only other individual strip searched by Defendant Mack.”
(Magistrate’s Order at Pg. ID 490.) The only question that remains is whether the
redactions of the alleged-victim’s name and other personal information in that report
were appropriate, and Perry does not speak to that question. Moreover, Campbell
has not sufficiently explained why the identity of the third party is relevant to his
failure-to-train claim. Campbell’s objection related to the name of the additional
strip-searched individual is therefore OVERRULED.

4

C
In Campbell’s third objection, he argues that the Magistrate Judge should have
required Defendants to produce the names of all officers on duty with Mack in the
180 days prior to Campbell’s arrest and strip search. (See Objections, ECF #64 at
Pg. ID 513-14.) Campbell insists that “[o]ther officers may be potential witnesses
to Mack’s prior misconduct, and thus would be relevant witnesses.” (Id. at Pg. ID
514.)
Campbell’s objection is unavailing. He has not identified any other specific
“prior misconduct” that has occurred and has not explained how receiving the names
of all officers on duty with Mack would be anything other than a fishing expedition.
Nor has Campbell even attempted to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that the request is “substantively overbroad [because] it seeks reports concerning
incidents arising from facts and circumstances dissimilar to those alleged by
[Campbell].” (Magistrate’s Order at Pg. ID 489.) This objection is OVERRULED.
D
Campbell finally objects to Defendants’ redactions of four pages of an
investigation report related to this incident. (See Objections, ECF #64 at Pg. ID 514.)
Defendants have now produced the four pages. (See Def.s’ Resp. to Objections, ECF
#65 at Pg. ID 586; ECF #65-3.) This objection is therefore OVERRULED AS
MOOT.

5

III
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Campbell’s
Objections to the Magistrate’s Order (ECF #64) are OVERRULED.

Dated: December 8, 2017

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 8, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

6