Gale v. O'Donohue et al

Filing 74

ORDER OVERRULING 67 Objection to 66 Order on Motion to Compe filed by Joseph Gale. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Joseph Gale, an individual, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12172

City of Royal Oak Police Chief
Corrigan O’Donohue, in his individual
and official capacity, Phillip Klinge,
Mark Parmo, and Nathan Heppner, in
their individual capacities, jointly and
severally,
Defendants.
______________________________/

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVIS’S SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate Judge
Stephanie Dawkins Davis’s September 6, 2018 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.
On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and responses
to requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 42). In his motion, Plaintiff argued that
Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests were “completely evasive, and full of irrelevant and
evasive objections.” (ECF No. 42, PageID 726). Plaintiff argued that the Defendants’ consistent use
of boilerplate objections was entirely improper and should be turned aside. (ECF No. 42, PageID
729). Plaintiff also argued that Royal Oak Chief of Police Corrigan O’Donahue’s responses were
inconsistent with the capacity in which he was sued.
1

On September 6, 2018, Judge Davis held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. After
arguments, Judge Davis granted Plaintiff’s motion as it related to O’Donahue, and denied it all other
respects. Judge Davies reasoned that, although Defendants responses had many boilerplate
objections, she was not able to discern what, if any, deficiencies actually existed. Plaintiff had not
specified exact deficiencies and Judge Davis concluded that there was no specific relief available,
except to remind Defendants that they have an ongoing duty to supplement their responses. Plaintiff
now objects to this portion of Judge Davis’s order.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). When a magistrate judge hears and determines a non- dispositive
motion (i.e., one that is not enumerated in §636(b)(1)(A)), the district judge to whom the case is
assigned may reconsider the order addressing that motion "where it has been shown that the
magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Based on the Court’s review of the record, it cannot conclude that Judge Davis’s order is
contrary to law. Plaintiff is correct that Defendants’ responses are overstuffed with boilerplate
objections that do not specify how exactly the discovery request is deficient. For example, it is hard
to believe that Defendants honestly consider nearly every single interrogatory and discovery request
to be “vague and ambiguous.” And even if Defendants do believe that nearly every discovery
request is vague and ambiguous, they leave it to the Court to decipher how.
Such rampant use of boilerplate objections is simply not appropriate. See generally Wesley
Corp. v. Zoom T.V. Products, LLC, 2018 WL 372700 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2018). But, as Judge
Davis observed, Defendants provided answers subject to their objections and supplemented their
responses to reflect whether they had withheld information or documents on the basis of their

2

objections. Where documents or information was withheld, Defendants appeared to have produced
them. As such, Defendants appear to have cured any deficiencies that existed in the original
responses because of boilerplate. Without a more detailed showing of how a specific boilerplate
objection is objectionable, the Court must agree with Judge Davis.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: November 27, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
November 27, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

3