Santifer v. Automotive Systems, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING Defendant's 32 Motion to Strike--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

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

Case No. 5:15-cv-11486
District Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

INERGY AUTOMOTIVE
SYSTEMS, LLC. et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL (DE 32)
Plaintiff, Eric Santifer, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
filed a document he titled “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion to Compel the Court to
Continue Claims/Complaints Against the Defendants” on May 31, 2016. (DE 28.)
In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to provide responses to
his interrogatories and documents responsive to his requests for production of
documents. Specifically, he contends that Defendants have not provided personnel
files, documentation related to his employment, and training documents. In
addition, Plaintiff provides a brief description of his case and notes that because
Defendants “failed to comply with Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Production of

Document Requests,” they should be barred from introducing certain evidence into
the record. (Id. at 4.)
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on May 31, 2016. (DE
29.) On June 2, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to
compel, arguing that the motion to compel was filed because defense counsel
notified Plaintiff that they would be filing a dispositive motion. Defendants assert
that Plaintiff’s motion is more properly filed as a response to their motion for
summary judgment. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
untimely, noting that discovery closed on February 9, 2016. Finally, Defendants
object to Plaintiff’s attempt to limit evidence at trial at this time.
On June 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants motion, in which
he admits that his motion to compel was not filed properly as a dispositive motion,
and indicates that he will respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(DE 36.) Plaintiff timely filed his response to the motion for summary judgment
on July 5, 2016. (DE 37.)
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion, despite its unartful title, as a
motion to compel. Although Plaintiff does, to some extent, attempt to argue the
substantive merits of his case, the Court cannot ignore the information contained
on pages 1-2 of his motion, in which he points to specific discovery requests and
asserts that he did not receive responses. Accordingly, despite the nomenclature
2

used, Plaintiff’s motion is not dispositive and will not be treated as such. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (The Court holds pro se pleadings to
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED. The Court will hear
Plaintiff’s motion to compel, specifically the assertions made on pages 1-2 that
Defendants have failed to respond to interrogatories and to produce documents
requested, as planned on July 26, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (DE 31.) Defendants may
file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel ON OR BEFORE JULY 22, 2016.
Alternatively, Defendants may rely on sections II and III of their motion to strike,
which address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2016

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

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on July 14, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3