England v. O'Briant

Filing 101

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 96 ; Plaintiff's Motion 94 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's Motion 100 is DENIED; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KOLEAN ENGLAND,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-185
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JAMES M. O’BRIANT,
Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
After obtaining a Default Judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Take
Possession of Defendant’s Safe Deposit Box” (ECF No. 94), a motion that was referred to the
Magistrate Judge.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R),

recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion. Within the time
period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Order
to Appear by Telephone” (ECF No. 100), essentially asking the Court to reconsider the mechanism
for delivery the Magistrate Judge recommended in the Report and Recommendation.

In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de
novo consideration of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been
made. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion and issues this Opinion and Order, approving and
adopting the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Bank of America be ordered to deliver the safe
deposit box in question to the Magistrate Judge within twenty-eight (28) days after this Court

adopts the recommendation. Once the safe deposit box is in the possession of the Court, the
Magistrate Judge will schedule a hearing at which the Magistrate Judge will review the contents
of the safe deposit box and provide to Plaintiff any items therein to which she is entitled. Bank of
America, which was also expressly permitted to submit any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, did not file any objection. Having reviewed the record, the Court determines
that Plaintiff’s request to reconsider the recommended delivery mechanism is not warranted, and
the Court will therefore deny her motion. The Magistrate Judge’s recommended course of action
is an appropriate exercise of discretion to protect any attorney-client privileged materials or client
property in the safe deposit box. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order to Appear by Telephone”
(ECF No. 100) is DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF
No. 96) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Take Possession of Defendant’s
Safe Deposit Box” (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; specifically,
the motion is granted to the extent that Bank of America is directed to deliver the safe deposit box
in question to United States Magistrate Judge Ellen Carmody within twenty-eight (28) days of
entry of this Opinion and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Opinion and Order shall be served upon Bank of
America.

/s/ Janet T. Neff

Dated: July 8, 2019

JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

2