Poole v. Pontiac, City of et al

Filing 86

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 78 Defendant Serna's Motion to Compel Sufficient Answers.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (SHic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GILBERT POOLE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:23-cv-11221
District Judge Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
CITY OF PONTIAC, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
SERNA’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUFFICIENT ANSWERS (ECF No. 78)
A.

Background
On June 6, 1989, Gilbert Poole was convicted of first degree murder. After

spending over 31 years in prison, he was completely exonerated on May 26, 2021.
(ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) In May 2023, Poole filed this eleven-count complaint
against the City of Pontiac, two of its officers, Oakland County, three prosecuting
attorneys, a Michigan State Police laboratory scientist, and an expert forensic
odontologist. (Id., ¶¶ 13-21; see also ECF No. 29.)
Following the February 2024 dismissal of Defendants City of Pontiac and
Oakland County (ECF No. 54), the case proceeds against the seven individual
Defendants, some of whom have been substituted for personal representatives
(ECF Nos. 42, 50, 53).
1

B.

Pending Motion
Defendant Estate of Officer Santiago Serna served discovery requests on

May 13, 2024 (ECF No. 78-2), Plaintiff answered and responded on June 26, 2024
(ECF No. 78-3), and Plaintiff supplemented answers and responses on January 8,
2025 (ECF No. 78-6).
Currently before the Court is Serna’s January 31, 2025 motion to compel
sufficient answers (ECF No. 78), as to which Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF
No. 81), Serna has filed a reply (ECF No. 83), and the relevant parties have filed a
joint statement of unresolved discovery issues (ECF No. 85). On March 7, 2025,
the Court conducted a hearing, at which Attorneys Kevin C. Riddle (Plaintiff),
David D. Burress and Ben Wright (City of Pontiac Defendants), and Layla Rose
Sizemore (Oakland County Defendants) appeared. (ECF No. 82.)
C.

Order
Upon consideration of the motion papers and counsels’ arguments and

representations at the hearing, and for all the reasons stated on the record by the
Court, which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein,
Serna’s January 31, 2025 motion to compel sufficient answers (ECF No. 78), as
narrowed by the joint statement of unresolved discovery issues (ECF No. 85), is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
•

As for Serna’s argument that “any objections to Defendants’
[sic] discovery requests were waived,” (ECF No. 78,
2

PageID.795-796), the motion is DENIED, inter alia, for the
reasons stated in Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 81,
PageID.912), the Court finding good cause for the delay, a lack
of prejudice to Defendant Serna, and that it would be
inequitable to find a waiver here.
•

As to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 1, which concerns prior
police investigations, arrests, indictments, or convictions (ECF
No. 85, PageID.977-979), the Court is satisfied that the
information requested is relevant to this case (e.g., liability
and/or damages), not privileged, and proportional.
Accordingly, the objections are OVERRULED, the motion is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff SHALL supplement the response
(ECF No. 78-6, PageID.836-837), based on his knowledge and
under oath.

•

As to Defendant’s Request for Production No. 8, which
concerns an electronic copy of his social media account
information (id., PageID.980-983), the objections are
OVERRULED, other than the overbreadth objection, which is
SUSTAINED IN PART, because some Facebook information
is relevant to damages and proportional to the needs of this
case. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART, and,
consistent with the Court’s direction from the bench, Plaintiff
SHALL supplement the response (ECF No. 78-6, PageID.853854) to include information from his two Facebook accounts,
although limited to the following folders: (a) comments; (b)
events; (c) friends (names only); (d) groups; (e) likes &
reactions; (f) photos and videos; (g) posts; (h) profile
information (public only); (i) stories; and, (j) your places. The
Court is satisfied that this information is proportional to this
case and the damages claim made. Any download by a
technical advisor shall be preserved for later use, if necessary.
If Plaintiff and his counsel are unable to retrieve the
information and data listed above, Plaintiff’s electronic devices
will have to be made available for review and extraction of data
by Defendant’s technical expert.

3

•

As for the demonstrative list of Facebook folders used during
the hearing, Serna SHALL file it as supplement to the motion
(ECF No. 78).

•

As to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 10, which concerns (i)
the names and contact information for individuals that Plaintiff
has spoken to about the events that form the basis of this
lawsuit while he was incarcerated, along with (ii) the medium
of communication and (iii) the substance of their discussions
(id., PageID.983-985), the objections are SUSTAINED as
overbroad and unduly burdensome, the motion is DENIED,
and Plaintiff NEED NOT supplement the response (ECF No.
78-6, PageID.846-847).

Any action ordered herein SHALL be completed no later than March 14, 2025.
Finally, to the extent Serna sought an award of costs for the necessity of
bringing this motion (ECF No. 78, PageID.803-804), the motion is DENIED, as
neither party prevailed in full. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).1
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
Dated: March 7, 2025

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel mentioned a forthcoming motion for
protective order regarding a deposition notice. Although counsel represented that
there has already been an attempt at concurrence, the relevant parties are required
to engage in another face-to-face (either in person or by video) meet and confer for
no less than thirty (30) minutes before filing the anticipated motion for protective
order regarding the notice of deposition.
1

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2

4