Gaddis v. Detroit et al
Filing
118
STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER Permitting Limited Completion of Discovery and Order Denying Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File re: 111 Statement filed by Mark Twain Gaddis.--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
Case 2:18-cv-13763-AJT-APP ECF No. 118, PageID.10894 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK TWAIN GADDIS,
Case No. 2:18-cv-13763
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT,
STEPHEN KUE,
JUSTIN MARROQUIN,
WALLACE RICHARDS,
KHARY MASON, and
PATRICK LANE,
Defendants.
__________________________/
STATUS CONFERNCE ORDER PERMITTING LIMITED COMPLETION
OF DISCOVERY and ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY (ECF No. 111)
This is a civil rights case, which stems from the alleged events of June 21,
2017. Discovery was originally due on January 24, 2020 (ECF No. 18), and, over
the course of the lawsuit, was extended to July 28, 2020 (ECF No. 63). The Court
permitted completion of certain outstanding discovery by October 28, 2020. (ECF
No. 66.) Since then, discovery has been permitted to proceed in various, specific
forms. (ECF Nos. 89, 92, 94-96.)
On August 19, 2021, in accordance with the Court’s April 14, 2020 text-only
order, Plaintiff filed a letter, which requested leave to file a motion to re-open
1
Case 2:18-cv-13763-AJT-APP ECF No. 118, PageID.10895 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 4
discovery. (ECF No. 111.) Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 114.) Judge
Tarnow referred the matter to me, and a video status conference was noticed for
September 7, 2021, at which attorneys Julie H. Hurwitz, William H. Goodman,
Allison L. Kriger, Melissa A. Brown, Gregory B. Paddison, Krystal A. Crittendon,
and Philip J. Hiltner appeared. (ECF Nos. 115-117.) The Court entertained
commentary and argument from counsel, after which the Court issued certain
rulings from the bench.
For the reasons stated on the record, all of which are incorporated by
reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiff’s August 19, 2021 request for
leave to file a motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 111) is DENIED at this time,
although completion of some outstanding and some new, limited discovery will be
permitted as follows:
1.
Although Assistant Chief LeValley was deposed on April 28th
and August 5th, Plaintiff may continue LeValley’s deposition
for no longer than one hour forty-five minutes, but Plaintiff
must provide Defendants with at least five days’ notice;1
2.
Plaintiff may continue Lt. Firsdon’s deposition for no longer
than one hour thirty minutes but must provide Defendants with
at least five days’ notice; and,
3.
Defendants shall produce a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness(es)
who is(are) knowledgeable about “DPD’s Disciplinary
Administration Unit practices . . .” and policies (ECF No. 111,
1
For all oral depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 addressed in this order, Plaintiff
must give reasonably specific advance notice as to the subjects to be addressed and
the documents likely to be explored.
2
Case 2:18-cv-13763-AJT-APP ECF No. 118, PageID.10896 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 4
PageID.10877) between 2010 and May 2018 (the date of
Plaintiff Gaddis’s acquittal). Plaintiff must provide 10 days’
notice of this deposition, and it may not exceed four hours.
4.
On or before October 4, 2021, Plaintiff may take the deposition
of either current Chief of Police White or former Chief of
Police Craig (but not both) by serving a maximum of twelve
written questions, including all discrete subparts, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, limited to the subject of public statements
they made to the press/media concerning “Kue’s citizen
complaint/disciplinary history and DPD’s decision to promote
him,” (ECF No. 111, PageID.10877).
Plaintiff is cautioned to use all of this time wisely and efficiently. Moreover, to the
extent Plaintiff alleges that “[d]efense counsel barred LeValley from answering
questions about DPD’s decision about how to proceed with Kue by erroneously
claiming attorney-client privilege[,]” (id.), and to the extent Defendants represent
that “the privileged conversation noted by Plaintiff was between LeValley, AC
Bettison, Chris Graveline (attorney in Professional Standards), and D.C. Ha
(DPD’s Chief Legal Advisor) about an ongoing DPD Investigation[,]” (ECF No.
114, PageID.10888), the parties are required to meet and confer for a minimum of
one hour (preferably with Chief Legal Advisor D.C. Ha in attendance) – either face
to face or via video conference – pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 to discuss, via a
meaningful, two-way exchange, resolution of these disputes. Only thereafter may
the parties file a motion – limited to the issue of whether the attorney client
privilege was properly asserted – not to exceed seven pages in length, which may
be followed by a seven page response and a three page reply. The Court will
3
Case 2:18-cv-13763-AJT-APP ECF No. 118, PageID.10897 Filed 09/09/21 Page 4 of 4
strictly enforce its Local Rules on format and type size and will not accept briefs in
which single-spaced footnotes are used to get around the page limitations. See
E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2),(3).
Finally, it is worth repeating that the discovery deadline expired long ago.
Therefore, not unlike the caution provided in the Court’s August 28, 2020 order
(ECF No. 66, PageID.1437), this is not a general extension of discovery. This
lawsuit is well-beyond that point. The Court will not permit any further
discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2021
Anthony P. Patti
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?