Craft et al v. Billingslea et al

Filing 139

OPINION and ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 131 Objection to Magistrate Judge Majzoub's Order Striking Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

D’MARCO CRAFT, ET AL.,
Case No. 17-cv-12752

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
RICHARD BILLINGSLEA, ET AL.,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION [#131]
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MAJZOUB’S ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
Present before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Objection to Magistrate Judge
Majzoub’s Order Striking Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 131.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub struck Plaintiffs’ Motion on three separate grounds:
1. Plaintiffs filed their Motion without first seeking concurrence from
Defendants, in violation of Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
7.1(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1);
2. Plaintiffs filed their Motion without including a verbatim recitation or
an actual copy of the discovery requests, in violation of Local Rule
37.2; and

-1-

3. Plaintiffs filed their Motion without waiting for Defendants’ discovery
responses.
Plaintiffs argue, without further explanation, that Magistrate Judge Majzoub erred
by failing to address Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26’s requirements. This
argument lacks merit.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter, the
district court must apply the “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Supreme Court has held that “[a] 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.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies only to the

magistrate judge’s factual findings; his legal conclusions are reviewed under the
plenary ‘contrary to law’ standard.” See id. (quoting Haworth, Inc. v. Herman
Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D. Mich. 1995)). Under the contrary to law
standard, the Court must exercise independent judgment in determining whether
the magistrate judge’s legal conclusions “contradict or ignore applicable precepts
of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” Sedgwick Ins. v.
F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536, 538 (E.D. Mich.
2014) (quoting Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)).

-2-

Here, Magistrate Judge Majzoub presented three separate grounds for
striking Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel.

Plaintiffs’ argument, that

Magistrate Judge Majzoub failed to address Rule 26’s requirements, does not cure
these defects. For that reason, the Court will Overrule Plaintiffs’ Objection and
Affirm Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s Order Striking Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion
to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 6, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, August 6, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

-3-