Mannon v. VAMC Ann Arbor et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 50 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (DAll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN ROGER MANNON,

Case No. 23-cv-12612
Plaintiff, Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.
VAMC ANN ARBOR,

Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 50)

I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Steven Roger Mannon brings this action under the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A), seeking review of the Government’s denial of
his request to amend a VA medical record that Mannon claims contains
inaccuracies. ECF No. 1. Mannon maintains that the record incorrectly
states that he was aggressive during an appointment and was
noncompliant with treatment. Id., PageID.6-7. The Honorable Mark A.
Goldsmith referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 34.

Mannon moves to compel the Government’s production of documents
to supplement the administrative record. ECF No. 50. The Court DENIES
Mannon’s motion.
II.

Analysis
At the outset, Mannon’s motion must be denied because he did not

make discovery requests before moving to compel. Mannon “must comply
with the federal rules of civil procedure and serve a request for production
of documents or other discovery requests on defendants before bringing a
motion to compel.” Williams v. Caruso, No. 08-10044, 2008 WL 4389831,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2008).
Nor has Mannon shown the relevance of the requested documents.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense,” except that the Court must consider proportionality
factors, including “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.” Under Rule 26(b)(1), “[t]he parties and courts
share the collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all
2

discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Helena AgriEnterprises, LLC v. Great Lakes Grain, LLC, 988 F.3d 260, 273 (6th Cir.
2021) (cleaned up). “The proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears
the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.”
Gruenbaum v. Werner Enters., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 298, 302 (S.D. Ohio, Oct.
7, 2010).
The federal rules also require that a document request “describe with
reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). A document request should not “call on the
producing party to engage in a subjective guessing game of whether a
document is responsive.” United States v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 16-CV14050, 2018 WL 7351682, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2018). Thus, courts
reject document requests that are “unlimited in subject matter and in time,
and therefore would sweep in numerous documents that bear no relevance
to the claims or defenses raised in this matter.” Mirmina v. Genpact LLC,
No. 3:16CV00614(AWT), 2017 WL 2559733, at *3 (D. Conn. June 13,
2017). Courts have long condemned omnibus “any and all” document
requests. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 387-88
(2004) (document requests asking “for everything under the sky” were
“anything but appropriate”); Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 274
3

F.R.D. 602, 609 (E.D. Ky. 2011) (“Generally, a discovery request is
considered overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face if it ‘(1) uses an
omnibus term…and (2) applies to a general category or group of
documents or a broad range of information.’”) (cleaned up).
Mannon seeks production of:
PATS records, Inquiry replies, Congressional and oversight
inquiries received, Secretary of Veterans Affairs case and
correspondence files, VIEWS CCM reports, disruptive behavior
reporting system entries, police reports, harassment prevention
coordinator records, OIG investigation, and responses to DOJ
referrals.
ECF No. 50, PageID.699. He asks the Court to order production of “all
records pertinent to [his] Privacy Act claim.” Id., PageID.700. But he offers
only vague explanations of the information these records likely contain and
does not address why that information is relevant to his claim that the
government wrongly denied his request to amend his medical record. See
ECF No. 55, PageID.737. Many requests are vague, such as “PATS
records,” “inquiry replies,” and “case and correspondence files,” leaving the
government to guess at what information Mannon seeks. And the requests
are limited neither to the timeframe relevant to Mannon’s claim nor to
records concerning Mannon.

4

Because Mannon has not made discovery requests in accordance
with the federal rules of civil procedure and has not shown the relevance of
the requested documents, his motion must be denied.
III.

Conclusion
The Court DENIES Mannon’s motion to compel (ECF No. 50).
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 11, 2025

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
5

their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on March 11, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager

6