Cline v. France

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VINCENT P. CLINE,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 4:16-CV-14332
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Anthony P.
Patti

DERAMUS FRANCE,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
TO TURN OVER MEDICAL AND PHOTOS [sic] RECORDS AND ALSO
THE INVESTIGATION RECORDS IN THIS MATTER (DE 29)
Pending is Plaintiff’s October 9, 2018 motion to compel Defendant to turn
over medical and photos [sic] records and also the investigation records in this
matter. (DE 29.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant, Corrections Medical Officer
Deramus France, violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and
unusual punishment by assaulting him on June 8, 2015 while he was housed at the
Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC). Defendant France has been served
and has filed Affirmative Defenses (DE 13), to which Plaintiff has responded. (DE
14.) This matter was referred to me for all pretrial purposes. (DE 7.)

On May 29, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order, setting discovery
and dispositive motion deadlines. (DE 21.) After all the deadlines in the
scheduling order had passed, and there were no pending motions, I entered a
certification of completion of pretrial proceedings on September 18, 2018 and
returned this matter to the District Judge for further proceedings. (DE 25.)
On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. (DE 29.) In his
motion, he asks the Court to order Defendant to respond to four requests, “pursuant
to Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P.” (DE 29 at 1.) To obtain documents, Plaintiff was
required to follow the discovery process outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 34 requires a party to request documents, after which the party to
whom the request is made has thirty days to either provide the documents or to
object to doing so, with reasons given as to the grounds for the objection(s). This
stage of the process does not involve the Court. Plaintiff does not indicate in his
motion that he previously attempted to obtain these items from Defendant during
the discovery process, and that he filed the motion to compel them to provide items
that had been improperly withheld pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Instead, he seems to have filed discovery requests with the Court before serving
them upon Defendant. Pursuant to Rule 5, requests for documents “must not be
filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing….” Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 5(d); see also E.D. Mich. LR 26.2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
Alternatively, even if Plaintiff had properly sought documents from
Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local
Rule 37.2 requires that, “Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
through 37, shall include, in the motion itself or in 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.” As that did not happen here, the Court has no
way to evaluate the discovery responses or objections at issue. Furthermore, even
if Plaintiff had otherwise properly filed this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
and Local Rule 37.2, the May 29, 2018 Scheduling Order in this case expressly
provides that discovery “must be completed on or before August 3, 2018[,]” and
that “motions relating to discovery, if any, shall be filed within the discovery
period unless it is impossible or impracticable to do so.” (DE 21 at 1-2
(emphases added).) That deadline has passed, and this matter has been certified as
ready for trial. Neither additional discovery nor the filing of discovery related
motions will be permitted at this post-discovery stage of the proceedings. This
motion, filed after the close of discovery and past the discovery motion deadline, is
therefore untimely. “A district court enjoys broad discretion in managing
3

discovery[,]” and “may properly deny a motion to compel discovery where the
motion was filed after the close of discovery.” Suntrust Bank v. Blue Water Fiber,
L.P., 210 F.R.D. 196, 199 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing Willis v. New World Van
Lines, Inc., 123 F.Supp.2d 380, 401 (E.D. Mich. 2000)). Plaintiff’s motion is
therefore alternatively DENIED for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.2 and as
untimely. Plaintiff is reminded that no further discovery will be permitted in this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 12, 2018

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

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on October 12, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

4