Townsend v. Rhodes et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING without Prejudice 90 Motion DiscoveryInterrogation of Defendant.; Denying without Prejudice 91 Motion DiscoveryInterrogation of Defendant.--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD TOWNSEND,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:14-CV-10411
Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.

KAREN RHODES, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S OCTOBER 21,
2015 MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY (DE 90) and FOR INTERROGATION
OF DEFENDANT KAREN RHODES (DE 91)
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 27, 2014. (DE 1.) Following the
Court’s April 13, 2015 and September 28, 2015 orders, the only remaining
defendant is Karen Rhodes. (DEs 45, 85.) Defendant Rhodes’s July 28, 2015
motion for summary judgment is among those motions pending before the Court.
(DE 59.). Pursuant to this Court’s October 14, 2015 order, Plaintiff’s response to
Defendant Rhodes’s motion for summary judgment is due on or before November
16, 2015. (DE 88.)
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s October 21, 2015 motions for
discovery (DE 90) and for interrogation of Defendant Karen Rhodes (DE 91). In

essence, these motions present seven (7) requests for production of documents and
thirty-five (35) interrogatories. These motions, as presented, are improper. First, it
appears that Plaintiff simply sent his discovery requests to this Court, rather than
serve them upon the appropriate party in accordance with Fed. Rules Civ. P. 33
(“Interrogatories to Parties”) or 34 (“Producing Documents, Electronically Stored
Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering Onto Land, for Inspection and
Other Purposes”). Second, this does not appear to satisfy a limited instance in
which discovery material may be filed with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1),
E.D. Mich. LR 26.2 (“Filing Discovery Material”).
Perhaps some discovery guidance to Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is in
order. Should answers, responses and/or objections to properly served
interrogatories and requests for production of documents fail to comply with the
Fed. Rules of Civ. P. 33 and 34, Plaintiff may file a motion for an order compelling
disclosure or discovery in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), which should
include a certification that the parties have conferred regarding the relief sought.
See also E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a) (“Seeking Concurrence in Motions and Requests.”),
E.D. Mich. LR 37.1 (“Motion to Compel Discovery”). Moreover, the Local Rules
of this Court provide guidance as to the preferred form of a discovery motion. See
E.D. Mich. LR 37.2 (“Form of Discovery Motions”) (“Any discovery motion filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, shall include, in the motion itself or in
2

an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request,
answer, response, and objection which is the subject of the motion or a copy of the
actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s October 21, 2015 motions for discovery (DE 90)
and for interrogation of Defendant Karen Rhodes (DE 91) are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal once his requests have been properly served
and the time for answering, responding or objecting has expired. Plaintiff’s
August 13, 2015 motion to compel (DE 73) and October 21, 2015 motion for
judgment (DE 89) will be addressed under separate cover.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2015

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

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on November 9, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

3