Bennett v. Winn et al

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING as MOOT 96 Motion for Protective Order; AND 96 Motion to Quash--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN ERIC BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:17-cv-12249
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

O’BELL T. WINN,
TODD McLEAN,
KARIN FLOREY,
WENDT WRIGHT, and
JASON DESHAIS,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DIRECTOR WASHINGTON AND
WARDEN MINARD’S COMBINED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND TO QUASH (ECF No. 96)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of non-party Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) Director Washington and non-party Saginaw
Correctional Facility (SRF) Warden Minard’s combined motion for protective
order and to quash (ECF No. 96) and Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 100). Judge
Leitman referred the motion to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 97.)
A hearing was held on March 11, 2022, at which Attorney Daniel E. Manville and
Assistant Attorney General Austin C. Raines appeared, and the Court held an on
the record discussion regarding the motion.

Upon consideration of the motion papers and the oral presentations of
counsel, and for all the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby
incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, non-party Washington
and non-party Minard’s combined motion for protective order and to quash (ECF
No. 96) is DENIED AS MOOT. Namely, Washington and Minard’s subpoenarelated objections and request to quash are mooted by Plaintiff’s February 17, 2022
response, which reflects his intention to withdraw the subpoenas and the 30(b)(6)
deposition notices and re-notice them for a time after receipt of the critical incident
reports (CIRs). (ECF No. 100, PageID.1979.) Also, Washington and Minard’s
request for a protective order to prevent their depositions is mooted by Plaintiff’s
counsel’s March 11, 2022 representation that any desire to depose Washington and
Minard will be sought as witnesses for their knowledge of relevant issues, not as
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) MDOC representatives. If Plaintiff ultimately chooses to
seek the depositions of these witnesses before the close of discovery based upon
their actual knowledge or individual involvement, the opposing attorneys must
have a meaningful, bilateral (face-to-face or video) discussion – specifically as to
whether such a deposition should be permitted and, if so, the appropriate scope,
and whether there are more knowledgeable or appropriate witnesses – before
subpoenas are served and another round of adversarial motion practice ensues.

2

Their discussions should be informed by Jackson v, City of Detroit, No. 05-74236,
2007 WL2225886, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug.1, 2007).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2022

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3