Gatt v. County of Macomb et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING as Unopposed Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil) (Main Document 22 replaced on 9/18/2018) (MWil).

Case 2:18-cv-10778-GAD-APP ECF No. 22 filed 09/18/18

PageID.141

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLINTON GATT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:18-cv-10778
District Judge Gershwin A. Drain
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

COUNTY OF MACOMB,
LARRY RUIZ,
LAWRENCE HELHOWSKI,
BRENT WHITNEY,
BRANDON MEDLOW,
DANIEL ZALIWSKI,
CEDRIC ERKINS, and
WILLIAM EISENHARDT,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS (DE 19) and
CANCELLING HEARING NOTICED FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 (DE 21)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 24, 2018 motion to compel
discovery against all Defendants. (DE 19.) Judge Drain referred this motion to me
for hearing and determination, and a hearing has been noticed for September 27,
2018. (DEs 20, 21.)
Defendants have not opposed the instant motion. “A respondent opposing a
motion must file a response, including a brief and supporting documents then
available.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1). “A response to a nondispositive motion must

Case 2:18-cv-10778-GAD-APP ECF No. 22 filed 09/18/18

PageID.142

Page 2 of 3

2
be filed within 14 days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(B).
Thus, in the absence of a scheduling order stating otherwise, Defendants’ response
to Plaintiff’s August 24, 2018 motion (DE 19) would have been due on or about
September 10, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d). To date, Defendants have not
filed a response.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s August 24, 2018 motion to compel discovery
against all Defendants (DE 19) is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Specifically,
Defendants are ordered to serve complete responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories to All Defendants and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents to All Defendants on or before September 28, 2018. The Court
declines to award Plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5), however, because Plaintiff failed to effectively comply with Rule
37(a)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Plaintiff’s motion simply refers to two email
communications generally inquiring about the status of the discovery responses,
one dated three weeks before Plaintiff filed his motion, and the other eight days
before. These communications fail to demonstrate or certify compliance with the
specific requirements set forth in Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 7.1 regarding the
necessary good faith efforts to resolve the dispute without court action. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i) (the court may not order the payment of expenses and

Case 2:18-cv-10778-GAD-APP ECF No. 22 filed 09/18/18

PageID.143

Page 3 of 3

3
attorney’s fees if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to
obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action”). Finally, the hearing
scheduled for September 27, 2018 (DE 21) is CANCELLED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2018

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

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on September 18, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti