Bennett v. Winn et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING in part and RESOLVING in part Plaintiff's 89 Motion to Amend/Correct to Compel Discovery-Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Case 4:17-cv-12249-MFL-APP ECF No. 99, PageID.1976 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 3

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, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND RESOLVING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (ECF No.
89)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s amended
motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 89), Defendants’ response in
opposition (ECF No. 92), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 93), and the parties’ joint
statement of unresolved issues (ECF No. 95). Judge Leitman referred the motion
to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 90.) A hearing was held on
February 10, 2022, at which counsel for both parties appeared and the Court
entertained oral argument regarding the motion.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of
the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by
reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery
responses (ECF No. 89) is DENIED IN PART and RESOLVED IN PART.

Case 4:17-cv-12249-MFL-APP ECF No. 99, PageID.1977 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 3

Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to Request for Production Nos. 21
and 22 in his Second Set of Discovery Requests (see ECF No. 82-2, PageID.17591760), that part of the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the
parties’ effort to resolve the issue through the newly-filed motion for protective
order and to quash (ECF No. 96). Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to compel a response
to Request for Production No. 2 in his First Set of Discovery Requests (see ECF
No. 82-5, PageID.1772-1773), the parties stipulated on the record to the following
language, after the Court ruled on scope and gave further guidance, as follows:
Defendants shall produce all Critical Incident Reports and related
writings from November 2012 to November 2018 regarding violence
against inmates, including gang-related assaults and violence against
staff members involving weapons.
Personal identifying information regarding staff members other than
names shall be redacted.
Personal identifying information regarding prisoner victims up to
January 10, 2014, shall be produced pursuant to protective order.
Personal identifying information for prisoner victims after January 10,
2014, shall be redacted.
These Critical Incident Reports should include those occurring in
Housing Unit #600 and all gang-related assaults or stabbing incidents
perpetrated by prison gangs.
Defendants must PRODUCE the above documents by Thursday, March 3, 2022.
The Court awards no costs, neither party having prevailed in full. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
2

Case 4:17-cv-12249-MFL-APP ECF No. 99, PageID.1978 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2022

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3