2020 Outdoor Media, LLC v. Sterling Heights, City of
2:24-cv-12801
| E.D. Mich. | Jul 2, 2025Background
- 2020 Outdoor Media, L.L.C. seeks to construct an outdoor advertising sign in Sterling Heights, Michigan, alleging a pattern of unjust denial by the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
- Plaintiff filed suit in October 2024, asserting federal and state constitutional violations and exclusionary zoning after multiple denials culminating in July 2024.
- The City of Sterling Heights is the only remaining defendant after the ZBA was dismissed by stipulated order.
- Plaintiff’s claims include facial challenges to the sign ordinance and an as-applied Equal Protection claim, noting alleged disparate treatment compared to prior approvals for other entities.
- The City moved for a protective order to bar depositions of ZBA members, arguing lack of relevance and burden.
- The Court held a hearing and reviewed arguments as to which, if any, ZBA members should be subject to deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depositions of all ZBA members | Legislative privilege does not apply; testimony is central | Depositions are irrelevant, burdensome, and quasi-judicial immunity applies | Partially granted; some but not all depositions allowed |
| Legislative privilege (deposition bar) | Not applicable to quasi-judicial ZBA; privilege inapplicable | Did not assert legislative privilege, acknowledge ZBA is quasi-judicial | Not applicable—privilege not relied upon by defendant |
| Relevance to equal protection (comparator) | Testimony essential regarding disparate treatment | Only two members relevant; others not germane | Only Graef and D’Angelo depositions allowed, limited time |
| Plaintiff’s accusations of bias/ulterior motive | Discovery regarding ZBA chair’s bias relevant | Plaintiff withholds basis for bias claim, should not obtain related discovery | Deposition barred where plaintiff withheld factual basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Lilly Inv., LLC v. City of Rochester, 2015 WL 753491 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (permitting limited discovery to explore comparator decisions under equal protection).
- Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 569 F. Supp. 3d 626 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (relevance threshold for discovery is low).
- MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Fox, 2018 WL 11223424 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (discovery scope should be tailored to avoid fishing expeditions).
(Note: These cases do not have official reporter citations in the text provided; the above includes only those styled in the opinion as precedent.)