Griswold v. Trinity Health-Michigan et al

Filing 93

ORDER Denying 92 Motion for Contempt without Prejudice for Renewal. Signed by District Judge Robert J. White. (TVil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN E. GRISWOLD,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 22-10980
v.
Honorable Robert J. White
TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, et
al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR RENEWAL
This case was reassigned to the Court on August 12, 2024. On September 5,
2024, the Court held a remote status conference with the Parties to discuss setting a
motion hearing for the outstanding motions and putting the case back on track for a
“just, speedy, and inexpensive determination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
At that conference, counsel for the County Defendants indicated that they
expect to file a motion for Plaintiff to produce records he has yet to hand over in this
case. The Court advised counsel to review the Court’s website and the Case
Management Requirements located there before filing any discovery motion. See
Case Management Requirements, https://perma.cc/4GH2-9SWV.

And on

September 11, 2024, the Court filed those requirements on the case docket. See ECF

No. 91. As relevant here, those requirements bar parties from filing “discovery
motions until they have complied with” a specific three-step “discovery dispute
protocol.” Id., PageID.3998-99. The gist of that protocol is that the Parties must
meet and confer in good faith to resolve the dispute (Step 1), request a status
conference with the Court if Step 1 fails (Step 2), and file a motion if the conference
does not resolve the dispute (Step 3). Id.
On September 18, 2024, the County Defendants filed a motion for an order of
contempt and other sanctions against Plaintiff for his expert’s purported failure to
“produce documents related to [the expert’s] income.” ECF No. 92, PageID.4013.
Once the Parties “confer[red] in good faith,” ECF No. 91, PageID.3998, and
Plaintiff’s counsel missed his self-imposed September 13, 2024 deadline, see ECF
No. 92, PageID.4007, counsel for the County Defendants should have “schedule[d]
a telephone conference with the Court” and provided its case manager with the
information necessary to resolve the dispute before resorting to motion practice.
ECF No. 91, PageID.3999. Accordingly,
The Court ORDERS that the County Defendants’ motion for contempt (ECF
No. 92) is DENIED without prejudice for renewal.
The Court further ORDERS that the County Defendants comply with the
Court’s discovery dispute protocol by “email[ing] the Court’s case manager with
(i) the conference request, (ii) a concise summary of the dispute, and (iii) a

2

certification that Step 1 was completed.” ECF No. 91, PageID.3999. It would also
help if counsel proposed some dates for the status conference that are convenient for
counsel on both sides. Once the Court sets the conference, “[a]t least 24 hours prior
… each side shall exchange with each other, and submit to the Court through
CM/ECF Utilities, a one-page summary of the dispute.” Id.
If the Parties cannot reach a resolution before the status conference, they
should come prepared to discuss Plaintiff’s compliance—or lack thereof—with
Judge Murphy’s March 8, 2024 order. See ECF No. 60.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2024

s/Robert J. White
Robert J. White
United States District Judge

3