Grinnell v. Taylor et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LESLEE GRINNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-11354
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

CITY OF TAYLOR, TAYLOR POLICE
OFFICER A, TAYLOR POLICE OFFICER
B, TAYLOR POLICE OFFICER C,
TAYLOR POLICE OFFICER D,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [26]
Leslee Grinnell filed his complaint on April 27, 2017 stemming from an arrest by City of
Taylor police officers that resulted in Grinnell being injured. (ECF No. 1.) Because Grinnell did
not know who the involved officers were, he named John Does. (See id.) From the time the
complaint was filed, Grinnell’s counsel gave defense counsel numerous extensions to answer the
complaint and discovery requests. These extensions were given as professional courtesies due to
several tragic deaths in defense counsel’s family. As a result, the statute of limitations on Grinnell’s
claims lapsed before he amended the complaint to identify the John Does.
So Defendants moved for summary judgment based upon the expiration of the statute of
limitations. (ECF No. 26.) The motion is fully briefed (ECF No. 26, 27, 29) and the Court heard
oral argument on December 21, 2018.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth more fully on the record during the
Court’s oral ruling, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Grinnell’s excessive-use-of-force and related Monell claims
will be equitably tolled. Grinnell’s malicious-prosecution claim will not.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grinnell will be permitted to depose Officer Carroll and
one other Rule 30(b)(6) witness (the witness other than or in addition to Officer Carroll that is
most knowledgeable about the incident resulting in the excessive force claims). Defendants will
be required to supplement their discovery responses to provide a complete response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory Number 3(c) within 30 days of the entry of this Order. Plaintiff will have 14 days to
file an amended complaint following the completion of the last deposition. After the amended
complaint has been filed, the Court will issue a trial scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: December 21, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, December 21, 2018, using the Electronic Court Filing system
and/or first-class U.S. mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

2