Annabel, II v. Jackson County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 47 , 48 , 59 , 69 , 72 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT ANNABEL II,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-12189
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 47, 48, 59, 69, 72)
A.

Background
Robert Wayne Annabel, II is currently located at the Michigan Department

of Corrections (MDOC) Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF), where he is serving a
life sentence imposed on May 15, 2024, for a May 23, 2022 offense. See People v.
Annabel, Case No. 2022-704-FC (Jackson County, 4th Circuit Court); ECF No. 411 [Register of Actions]; www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search.”
In September 2022, while located at the MDOC’s Macomb Correctional
Facility (MRF), Annabel initiated this lawsuit, which stems from his alleged May
23, 2022 arrest – at which time he “was in a six-bedroom house designated for
parolees[,]” (ECF No. 45, PageID.402 ¶ 1) – and subsequent alleged events at the
Jackson County Jail (JCJ). (Id., ¶¶ 13-23.) Plaintiff brought this action against the

Jackson County Sheriff Department (JCSD), Advanced Correctional Healthcare,
Inc. (ACH), Sheriff Gary Schutte, Deputy Ryan Steverson, and three unknown 3rd
shift JCJ deputies. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 5-11; see also ECF Nos. 21, 32.)
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the U.S. Marshal has facilitated
service of process, and Defendants JCSD, Schuette, Steverson, and ACH have
appeared via counsel. (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 32.)
The case has been referred to me for “all pretrial proceedings, including a
hearing and determination of all non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” (ECF No. 20.) On August 27, 2024, Judge
Michelson issued an order adopting my report and recommendation and, among
other things, dismissed Defendant ACH. (ECF No. 76.)
Before the Court are five motions to compel filed by Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 47,
48, 59, 69, 72) and an unopposed motion to amend the scheduling order (ECF No.
75). 1 The court heard oral argument on the motions via zoom on September 26,
2024.

1

The Court will address the motion to amend (ECF No. 75) by separate order.
2

B. Order
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all the
reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by
reference as though fully restated herein:
1) Plaintiff’s first motion to compel (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Defendant Ryan Steverson is DIRECTED to supplement Interrogatory No.
17 within two weeks. The motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 16, directed at
Defendant Steverson. Further, Defendant Schuette is DIRECTED to supplement
Interrogatory No. 11, 16, &17 within two weeks. All supplemental interrogatory
answers directed by this order (or otherwise) must made under oath, as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). The motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 15, directed
at Defendant Schuette.
Plaintiff is awarded an apportioned amount of costs ($10) to account for his
photocopying and postage, as he was largely successful, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff should not have been required to file this motion in order to receive
discovery responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
2) Plaintiff’s second motion to compel (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
As an initial matter, Defendants are DIRECTED to produce the relevant
overhead video within two weeks. Next, as to Plaintiff’s Fifth Set of
3

Interrogatories to Defendant Steverson, Defendants’ objections are overruled in
part, and sustained in part. Defendants are DIRECTED to supplement their
responses to Interrogatory No. 20 as to Defendant Steverson’s knowledge only. No
further supplementation is required as to Interrogatory No. 19.
As to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents, Defendants
have represented that they have produced all responsive documents as to Request
No. 8 and there is no reason the Court has to doubt that. The Court cannot order
Defendants to produce more than they say they have. The motion is denied as to
Request No. 8. As to Request for Production No. 10, Defendants’ objections are
overruled as to being unduly burdensome or nonproportional. Defendants are
DIRECTED to produce any evidence that has not already been produced, that they
are currently aware of, and that they intend to use at trial. As to these and all other
discovery addressed in this order, they are reminded of their duty to supplement
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) if and when they become aware of “additional or
corrective information [that] has not otherwise been made known to the other
parties during the discovery process or in writing.”
Plaintiff is awarded an apportioned amount of costs ($15) to account for his
photocopying and postage, as he was largely successful, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff should not have been required to file this motion in order to receive
discovery responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
4

3) Plaintiff’s third motion to compel (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
As to Defendant Schuette’s answers to Plaintiff’s First Request for
Admissions, the Court finds Defendant’s answers adequate as to Plaintiff’s
Request Nos. 1, 2, and 6 and no further supplement is required.
Based on counsel’s representation on the record, Request No. 3 is
DEEMED ADMITTED.
As to Defendant Steverson’s answers to Plaintiff’s Second Request for
Admission, the Court finds Defendant’s answers adequate as to Plaintiff’s Request
Nos. 1 and 2 and no further supplement is required.
Based on counsel’s representation on the record, Request No. 7 is
DEEMED ADMITTED.
Finally, Plaintiff served his Sixth Set of Interrogatories and Third Request
for Production of Documents on May 3, 2024. Defendants responded to the Third
Request for Production of Documents on September 10, 2024, and has yet to
respond to the Sixth Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff admits that he received
responses to the Third Request for Production of Documents, so his motion as to
those responses is DEEMED MOOT. Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to
Plaintiff’s overdue Sixth Set of Interrogatories within five business days of this
order, by October 3, 2024. Defendants are admonished that the deadlines set forth

5

in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-36 are not optional and apply regardless of whether one’s
opponent is incarcerated.
Plaintiff is awarded an apportioned amount of costs ($25) to account for his
photocopying and postage, as he was largely successful, and the Court finds that
Plaintiff should not have been required to file this motion in order to receive
discovery responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(6).
4) Plaintiff’s fourth motion to compel (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED as
unopposed.
Defendants’ counsel admitted on the record that Defendants have not
responded to Plaintiff’s Seventh Set of Interrogatories as to Defendant Schuette,
and the Court notes that they have also not responded to this motion. Defendants
are DIRECTED to respond to Plaintiff’s overdue Seventh Set of Interrogatories
within five business days of this order, by October 3, 2024.
Because his motion was granted, Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of
$4 to account for his photocopying and postage, as requested. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A).
5) Plaintiff’s fifth motion to compel (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
While the motion is largely denied as moot, it is granted with respect to
Plaintiff’s request for costs. Defendants have provided (untimely) responses to the
discovery at issue in this motion. As to the body cam footage, Defendants’ counsel
6

represented on the record that they have produced all the body cam footage in their
possession.
Because Defendants did not timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
until he filed a motion, Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $4 to account for
his photocopying and postage, as requested. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
All other holdings stated on the record on the five motions to compel are
incorporated by reference. The Court has awarded a total of fifty-eight dollars
($58) in costs, and Defendants are DIRECTED to pay Plaintiff within two weeks
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
Dated: September 26, 2024

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

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2

7