Dixon v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's #51 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUNIECE LaSHAWN DIXON,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 5:16-cv-14124
District Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DE 51)
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s March 22, 2018 motion to compel
discovery, Defendant’s response and Plaintiff’s reply. (DEs 51, 53 & 54.)
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for several reasons.
First, it fails to comply with Local Rule (LR) 7.1(a), which reads:
(a) Seeking Concurrence in Motions and Requests.
(1) The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated
motion, or request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1)(A), will be opposed. If the movant obtains concurrence,
the parties or other persons involved may make the subject
matter of the contemplated motion or request a matter of record
by stipulated order.
(2) If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must
state:
(A) there was a conference between attorneys or
unrepresented parties and other persons entitled to be heard
on the motion in which the movant explained the nature of

the motion or request and its legal basis and requested but
did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought;
(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or
request, the movant was unable to conduct a conference; or
(C) concurrence in this motion has not been sought
because the movant or nonmovant is an incarcerated
prisoner proceeding pro se.
Notably, the comments to LR 37.1, the rule which governs motions to
compel discovery in this District, state that “Motions to compel discovery are also
subject to LR 7.1.” Additionally, the Undersigned’s own practice guidelines make
clear that, “Except in pro se prisoner cases, no motion shall be filed or considered
unless the moving party or counsel has conferred in good faith by telephone or inperson with all other relevant parties or counsel in an effort to resolve the dispute,
or has made a reasonable attempt to so confer.” This matter has been referred to
me for all pretrial purposes, as was again confirmed in Judge Levy’s most recent
status conference order. (DEs 24 & 50.) Although pro se pleadings may be treated
more leniently than those drafted by lawyers, all litigants must still follow the
applicable court rules. See Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir.1988)
(“When a person … chooses to represent himself, he should expect no special
treatment which prefers him over others who are represented by attorneys.”). The
motion does not indicate compliance with the requirements identified above.1

1

Defendant also notes that, “Plaintiff's only mention of any discontent with Ford's
document production was in a March 20, 2017 [sic] status conference, at which
2

Second, the motion does not comply with LR 37.2, which 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.” The motion does not recite or attach the responses or objections with
which Plaintiff takes issue. The Court acknowledges, however, that Defendant
mitigated this deficiency by attaching them to its response. (DE 53-3.)
Third, Plaintiff’s motion only identifies specific complaints with respect to
two of Defendant’s responses, namely, its responses to Requests to Produce Nos. 1
and 3. (DE 51, ¶ 2.) As to Request No. 1, she complains that Defendant has failed
to produce “her unredacted employee file which would include the names of
employees that made complaints against her.” (DE 51 at 1-2.) Yet in her reply
brief, she indicates that, “Defendant has since provided Plaintiff with unredacted
versions of complaints made against her by co-workers.” (DE 54 at 2.) Since the
failure to provide unredacted names of employees who made complaints against
her is the very thing about which Plaintiff takes issue in her motion with respect to

time Judge Levy advised Plaintiff she could raise the issues with Ford to give Ford
a chance to resolve any such issues before filing a motion.” (DE 53 at 1.) Plaintiff
replies that “Defendant's account of what was said on the status conference call is
inaccurate.” (DE 54 at 1.) The minute entry itself does not reflect Judge Levy’s
words on this subject.
3

Request to Produce No. 1, the Court will DENY this portion of her motion as
MOOT.
Request to Produce No. 3 seeks:
Any document prepared during the regular course of business as a
result of the incidents complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Defendant’s corresponding objection states:
See Objections 1-9 asserted above, which are incorporated by
reference. Ford further objects to the request is vague, ambiguous, and
too uncertain to ascertain.2
In its response brief, Defendant further explains the basis of this objection,
namely that it “could not respond further because Plaintiff’s 31-page Complaint
included bizarre, rambling and unintelligible allegations against some 11
Defendants that did little to shed light on the subject matter of her claims against
Ford.” (DE 53 at 8.) Without adopting Ford’s pejorative adjectives, the Court
agrees that, in light of the nature of Plaintiff’s pleadings, her third request to
produce lacks the specificity needed to identify exactly what is being sought in
discovery. The objection is well taken, and thus SUSTAINED.

2

As the Undersigned’s practice guidelines for discovery practice make clear, “In
responding to discovery requests, form or boilerplate objections shall not be used
and, if used, may subject the party and/or its counsel to sanctions. Objections must
be specific and state an adequate individualized basis.” Thus, in the Court's view
Defendant’s nine preliminary objections, as referenced in the first sentence of the
specific objection at issue, are essentially meaningless, and the practice of making
such objections should be avoided in the future.
4

Finally, Plaintiff’s reply brief raises issues of spoliation and suggests that
she has evidence which should have been produced by Ford, but which was not.
These are issues for another day, which may be explored by way of impeachment,
requested jury instructions or otherwise.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2018

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

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on June
5, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

5