v. Thomas et al
Filing
64
OPINION and ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's 58 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT P. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 15-10210
Hon. Linda V. Parker
Mag. Elizabeth A. Stafford
v.
LORI A. BRIGGS and
MELISSA BORDEN,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 58.)
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, proceeding pro se, against Lori A. Briggs and
Melissa Borden on January 20, 2015, asserting civil rights violations under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and other state law claims. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims arise
from his alleged deprivation of ownership interest in two dogs that were seized,
under color of state law, by the Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed the instant
motion in limine requesting the admission of the genuineness, authenticity,
accuracy and truthfulness of 12 documents. (ECF No. 58.) The matter has been
fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 58, 59 & 62.) Also, the matter is scheduled for trial
before District Judge Linda V. Parker on October 29, 2018.
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeks the admission of the genuineness,
authenticity, accuracy and truthfulness of 12 documents—four Michigan Humane
Society (“MHS”) documents, seven Oakland County documents and one City of
Detroit document—related to Defendant Briggs’ application for employment with
MHS and the Oakland County Animal Control. (ECF No. 58 at Pg ID 785.)
Plaintiff claims that on December 1, 2016, he served Defendant Briggs with
Requests for Admission under Rule 36(a), requesting that she admit the 12
documents at issue are “genuine, authentic, true and accurate.” (Id. at 786.)
Defendant Briggs responded by objecting that: (1) the documents are not relevant
and, therefore, not within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1), and (2) the
language of Rule 36(a) only permits a party to request the admission of the
“genuineness” of a document. (Id. at 786-87.)
II.
Applicable Law & Analysis
Rule 26(a) states, in relevant part: “parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . .
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.” Also, Rule 36(a) states, in relevant part: “a matter is admitted
unless . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves . . . a written answer or
objection. . . . [T]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an
2
answer or objection. . . . On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule,
the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be
served.”
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the 12 documents at issue,
although having been obtained through discovery, have not been deemed relevant
or admissible into evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(a). The present issue is
whether the 12 documents are deemed admitted as “genuine, authentic, true and
accurate.” Pursuant to Rule 36(a), Defendant Briggs served a written answer
containing objections to Plaintiff’s Requests. Believing the answer to be
insufficient, Plaintiff’s proper course of action should have been to move the Court
to determine the sufficiency of Defendant’s answers. Since Defendant Briggs did
in fact serve an answer upon Plaintiff, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s
requested admissions should be or will be deemed admitted.
Pursuant to Rule 36(a), the Court may determine the sufficiency of
Defendant’s answer at any time before trial. Therefore, the Court will address this
issue now. Defendant Briggs objected to Plaintiff’s Requests to admit the
documents at issue were “genuine, authentic, true and accurate” on the grounds
that the language of Rule 36(a) only permits a party to request the admission of a
document’s “genuineness.”
3
Defendant Briggs could have denied the authenticity, truthfulness and
accuracy of the documents while at the same time admitting their genuineness.
Thus, the Court directs Defendant Briggs to amend its answer; specifically, the
Court directs Defendant Briggs to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents
at issue. The Court’s holding does not decide whether the documents are
admissible into evidence—this question will be reserved for a later time, upon
motion by either party. Rather, this holding pertains solely to the insufficiency of
Defendant’s objections and the Court’s directed relief therefrom.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 58) is
GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART in accordance with the
Court’s ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 15, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 15, 2018, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?