Shapiro v. Sherr et al

Filing 40

ORDER Overruling 33 Plaintiff's Objections and Upholding 30 Order. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (BGar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Margot Shapiro, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-11187 Roger Sherr, et al., Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND UPHOLDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 12/4/18 ORDER The parties filed two motions seeking to compel discovery in this action: 1) a Motion to Compel Documents filed by Defendants (ECF No. 18); and 2) a Motion to Compel Documents filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 21). This Court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford. After hearing from the parties in writing regarding their respective positions, the magistrate judge heard oral argument on December 3, 2018. During that hearing, the magistrate judge set forth her rulings, and the reasons for same, on the record. Thereafter, she issued an Order on December 4, 2018, wherein she: 1) denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without prejudice; and 2) granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’ Motion to Compel. She granted that motion with regard to Defendants’ Document Requests Number 1 and 5 but denied the motion as to Request Number 6. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed Objections to the December 4, 2018 order. (ECF No. 33). 1 Those objections do not pertain to the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s own Motion to Compel. Rather, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling as to Document Requests Number 5 and 6 in Defendants’ Motion to Compel. Defendants filed a response to those objections. (ECF No. 36). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), this Court must modify or set aside any part of the order in question “that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Having reviewed the relevant motion, the magistrate judge’s order, the transcript of the motion hearing during which the magistrate judge set forth the basis for her rulings, Plaintiff’s objections, and Defendants’ response to same, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that the magistrate judge’s rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Her rulings are wellreasoned and supported by the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. As such, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and UPHOLDS the magistrate judge’s December 4, 2018 order. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge Dated: February 21, 2019 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?