Kitchen v. Winn et al

Filing 50

ORDER overruling 46 Objections filed by Michael Kitchen to Magistrate Judge's Pre-Trial Order 44 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL KITCHEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-11627

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

O’BELL T. WINN, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
(DOC. 46) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PRE-TRIAL ORDER
On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge
Anthony P. Patti’s January 18, 2019 order granting in part and denying in
part his discovery motion. See Doc. 44. Plaintiff objects on four grounds.
First, Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred by accepting
Defendants’ late objections to his discovery requests. The magistrate
judge acknowledged the tardy objections, because he understood “the
calendar confusion that may have taken place in light of the Court-imposed
‘self-executing or automatic’ lift of the stay of discovery.” Doc. 44 at 7.
Second, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Patti should not have
accepted Defendant Winn’s objections to Plaintiff’s August 7, 2017
subpoena, which he argues were tardy. Plaintiff also challenges Defendant
-1-

Winn’s answer -- that no responsive documents exist – as untruthful.
Third, Plaintiff seeks documents indicating the “source” of information
which triggered the searches of his person and cell. Defendants
responded that no such documents exist, a response the magistrate judge
characterized as “reasonable.” Plaintiff objects based upon his belief that
the source that triggered the searches “has to be documented somewhere.”
Doc. 46 at 5.
Fourth, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s refusal to compel
Defendants Winn and Morris to answer interrogatories about their YMCA
memberships. Plaintiff argues that the questions could “lead to witnesses
who overheard [the Defendants] discussing Kitchen and the claims
underlying this lawsuit.” Id. at 6. The magistrate judge ruled that this
information was not within Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)’s “permissible scope of
discovery.” Doc. 44 at 12.
The court may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge=s
non-dispositive order that is Aclearly erroneous or contrary to law.@ 28
U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). AA finding is >clearly
erroneous= when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.@ Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470
-2-

U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (citation omitted). The court may not disturb the
magistrate’s factual findings Aeven though convinced that had it been sitting
as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.@ Id. The
court allows the magistrate=s legal conclusions to stand unless they are
Acontrary to law.@ Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio
1992) aff=d, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994). A legal conclusion is “contrary to
law ‘when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules
of procedure.’” Cratty v. City of Allen Park, No. 17-11724, 2018 WL
3983806, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2018) (citation omitted). In ruling on a
discovery dispute, “a magistrate judge is entitled to the same broad
discretion as a district judge and [his] order is overruled only upon a finding
of an abuse of discretion.” Id.
Although Plaintiff disagrees with the magistrate judge’s ruling, he has
not demonstrated that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Each of
the magistrate judge’s determinations was within his sound discretion.
After reviewing the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge did not
abuse his discretion by accepting Defendants’ late objections or
Defendants’ representations that certain documents do not exist. Nor did
the magistrate judge err in finding that Plaintiff’s interrogatories regarding
Defendants’ YMCA memberships were outside the proper scope of
-3-

discovery. Plaintiff’s contention that these requests could lead to witnesses
who overheard Defendants Winn and Morris discussing Plaintiff is based
on speculation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See generally Bush v. Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d
363, 367 (6th Cir. 1998) (the court has the discretion to balance a party’s
“right to discovery with the need to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections
(Doc. 46) to Magistrate Judge Patti’s order (Doc. 44) are OVERRULED.
Dated: March 7, 2019
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
March 7, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Michael Kitchen #189265, Michigan Reformatory,
1342 West Main Street, Ionia, MI 48846.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-4-