Guzall, et al v. Romulus, City of, et al

Filing 155

OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's 138 Objection to Magistrate Judge Grand's May 20, 2016 136 Order and Affirming Magistrate Judge Grand's Order. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARIANNE D. GUZALL a/k/a
MARIANNA GUZALL,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 13-11327
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CITY OF ROMULUS, ALAN R. LAMBERT,
and BETSEY KRAMPITZ,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRAND’S MAY 20, 2016 ORDER AND
AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRAND’S ORDER
On May 12, 2016, Raymond Guzall III and Raymond Guzall III, P.C.
(collectively “Mr. Guzall”) filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene in this case in
order to object to the Court’s discovery order with respect to a cell phone used by
Plaintiff and in Plaintiff’s possession. Mr. Guzall claimed he owned the phone and
it contains confidential attorney work product and privileged information. This
Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. On May 20, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Grand issued an order setting forth a procedure by which the cell
phone would be examined by forensic experts chosen by the parties. (ECF No.
136.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection to that order. (ECF No.
138.)

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision, the
reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting
party demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard does not
empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it
would have decided the matter differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the “clearly erroneous” standard is met
when despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon
reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Plaintiff’s objections do not claim clear error in Magistrate Judge Grand’s
analysis of Mr. Guzall’s motion to intervene. Instead, her objections address the
fairness of discovery in this case, generally. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that
if the magistrate judge ordered the examination of the cell phone in her possession,
the magistrate judge also should have ordered the forensic examination of the cell
phones belonging to Defendant Lambert, Defendant Krampitz, Leroy Burcroff, and
Julie Wojtylko. According to Plaintiff, discovery must be fair and “[i]n order to be
fair, the current May 20, 2016 order must apply to all parties.” (ECF No. 138 at Pg
ID 1983.)
2

When Magistrate Judge Grand issued his May 20, 2016 decision, however,
he was not presented with a discovery motion addressing anyone else’s cell phone
except the phone in Plaintiff’s possession. As such, his failure to order the forensic
examination of any other phone was not clear error. Therefore, the Court rejects
Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Grand’s order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Magistrate Judge Grand’s May 20, 2016 Order
(ECF No. 136) is AFFIRMED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 23, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 23, 2016, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

3