2020 Outdoor Media, LLC v. Sterling Heights, City of
2:24-cv-12801
| E.D. Mich. | Jul 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, 2020 Outdoor Media, LLC, seeks to construct an outdoor advertising sign in Sterling Heights and claims its property rights have been denied repeatedly since 2018.
- The latest denial from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) occurred on July 23, 2024, which plaintiff alleges continued a pattern of arbitrary variance denials.
- Plaintiff filed suit in October 2024 against the City of Sterling Heights and its ZBA, asserting several federal and state constitutional claims, including regulatory taking, vagueness, equal protection, and due process violations.
- Following a stipulated order, the only remaining defendant is the City of Sterling Heights.
- The dispute focuses on whether depositions should proceed for individual ZBA members regarding their handling of plaintiff’s variance applications and purported disparate treatment compared to other billboard requests.
- The complaint raises both facial and as-applied challenges to the City's sign ordinance, with a particular focus on equal protection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether depositions of all ZBA members should proceed | Testimony is relevant and central; legislative privilege does not apply | ZBA acts quasi-judicially, not legislatively; depositions are burdensome | Protective order granted for most ZBA members; depositions of two permitted |
| Applicability of legislative privilege | Privilege does not bar depositions here | Does not assert privilege; ZBA not legislative | Privilege argument is irrelevant; not at issue |
| Relevance of testimony from prior ZBA decisions | Prior disparate billboard approvals show potential equal protection issues | Testimony should be confined; only relevant if members were involved before | Two ZBA members (Graef, D’Angelo) deposed regarding comparator decisions |
| Proportionality and burdensomeness of discovery | No undue burden shown; necessary for case | Government decision-makers shouldn’t face routine deposition; chilling effect | Court limits depositions to specific ZBA members and subject matter |
Key Cases Cited
- Lilly Inv., LLC v. City of Rochester, 2015 WL 753491 (E.D. Mich.) (Relevance for discovery motions in zoning disputes)
- Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 569 F. Supp. 3d 626 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (Low threshold for showing relevance in discovery)
- MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Fox, 2018 WL 11223424 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (Limiting depositions to avoid fishing expeditions)
(Note: As directed, only cases with official reporter citations should appear in this list; if none are cited in the opinion, this section may be slimmed accordingly.)