Lotus Industries, LLC et al v. City of Detroit et al

Filing 156

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 147 Motion to Compel, DENYING- 148 Plaintiff's Letter Request to File a Motion, DENYING-- 153 Plaintiff's Letter Request to Produce.--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LOTUS INDUSTRIES, LLC,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:17-cv-13482
District Judge Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
DENNIS ARCHER, Jr., et al.
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF CHRIS WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL THE TAKING OF DEPOSITION OF NON-PARTY GABE
LELAND (DE 147), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S LETTER REQUEST TO
FILE A MOTION TO COMPEL THE TAKING OF NON-PARTY POLICE
OFFICERS, POLICE CHIEF JAMES CRAIG, TOM LEWAND AND
MAYOR MIKE DUGGAN (DE 148), AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
LETTER REQUEST TO PRODUCE 7,926 DOCUMENTS FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW BY THE COURT (DE 153)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of: (1) Plaintiff Christopher
Williams’ motion to compel the taking of deposition of non-party Gabe Leland
(DE 147), non-party City of Detroit and Gabe Leland’s response (DE 151), and
Defendant Dennis Archer, Jr.’s response (DE 154), both of which object on the
basis of the fact that Leland’s deposition was already taken in Lotus Industries,
LLC v. Duggan, Case No. 16-14112 (“Lotus I”); (2) Plaintiff’s letter request to file
a motion to compel the taking of non-party police officers, Police Chief James
Craig, Tom Lewand and Mayor Mike Duggan (DE 148) and the City of Detroit’s

letter response (DE 149); and, (3) Plaintiff’s letter request to produce 7,926
documents for an in camera review by the Court (DE 153). All discovery matters
have been referred to me for hearing and determination (DE 102), and a hearing
was held on July 23, 2019, at which counsel appeared and the Court entertained
oral argument regarding Plaintiff’s motion and the two letter requests.
Upon consideration of the motion papers, letter requests and oral argument
of counsel, and for all the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are
hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, the Court rules as
follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the taking of deposition of non-party Gabe
Leland is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be allowed to depose non-party
Leland for no more than 50 minutes, and the deposition shall be limited
to the three topics Plaintiff identified at the July 23, 2019 hearing: (1)
tickets issued to Plaintiff for noise violations; (2) increased police
presence at Centre Park Bar; and (3) Leland’s alleged participation in
discussions to divide the property before it was selected for
redevelopment by the DDA. Counsel for Plaintiff and non-party City of
Detroit and Gabe Leland confirmed at the hearing that the parties are not
precluded from using Gabe Leland’s deposition testimony in Lotus I and
Carmack v. City of Detroit, et al., Case No. 18-11018 (“Carmack”) in
this case, and accordingly Plaintiff is not permitted to re-question Leland
about topics addressed in those prior depositions. In addition, no other
non-party(ies) may attend Leland’s deposition, specifically including
Robert Davis.
2. Non-party City of Detroit objects to Plaintiff’s letter request to file a
motion to compel the taking of six partially identified non-party police
officers, Police Chief James Craig, Tom Lewand and Mayor Mike
Duggan (DEs 148, 149) on several bases, including ripeness (raised
orally at the hearing). Plaintiff’s counsel conceded at the hearing that he
2

has not yet attempted to serve any subpoena(s), or otherwise notice, these
depositions. The Court will not rule prospectively on the nine
depositions Plaintiff expresses an interest in taking, for some of which he
could not even identify the desired deponent. The City of Detroit’s
objection on the basis of ripeness is SUSTAINED and this letter request
is DENIED.
3. Finally, Plaintiff’s letter request to produce 7,926 documents for an in
camera review by the Court (DE 153) is DENIED, as such a voluminous
review would require an unreasonable expenditure of judicial resources.
See Stryker Corp. v. Ridgeway, Nos. 13-1066, 14-889, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 93741, at *8 (W.D. Mich. 2015). Instead, Plaintiff is directed to
review non-party DDA’s privilege log and identify, in a letter to nonparty DDA’s counsel, the specific documents challenged, and to include
an explanation as to why he believes each identified document(s) is not
privileged. Counsel for Plaintiff and non-party DDA are then directed to
meet, face-to-face, within 14 days of that letter, for a minimum of three
hours, to review the list of documents and attempt to resolve their
disputes by stipulation. After that, Plaintiff will be permitted to file a
letter request seeking to file a motion with regard to any remaining
challenged, privileged documents, which must be specifically identified
in any request for relief from the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2019

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3