296 F. Supp. 3d 854
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Cratty sued the City of Wyandotte under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy and conversion.
- The City moved for a protective order to bar the deposition of Mayor Joseph Peterson, claiming lack of relevant knowledge and legislative/deliberative process privileges.
- Cratty opposed and asserted he discussed his case with Mayor Peterson in 2010; Peterson told Cratty he would have Cratty’s cases dismissed.
- Cratty moved to compel production of specific 2007–2008 traffic citations (tinted-window and fail-to-signal tickets) and sought to compel answers withheld at depositions of Officers Torolski and Sadowski.
- The City responded with boilerplate objections (relevance, overbreadth) and asserted a purported seven-year retention limitation and burdensome retrieval for old tickets; it instructed witnesses not to answer certain deposition questions.
- The magistrate judge denied the blanket protective order, criticized boilerplate objections, ordered the City either to produce the requested tickets or provide detailed identifying information for each ticket, required a continued Torolski deposition on opinion testimony, declined to compel Sadowski on remote/unrelated note-taking, and extended limited discovery deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposition of Mayor Peterson — scope/protective order | Mayor Peterson has relevant communications with Cratty (2010) and may have relevant factual knowledge; deposition needed. | Mayor asserted legislative and deliberative process privileges and sought to confine topics to interactions with Cratty and case-specific matters. | Denied blanket protective order; Peterson may be deposed. City may assert privilege question-by-question but bears burden to justify instructions not to answer. |
| Production of 2007–2008 traffic tickets | Tickets will show whether Cratty was singled out (few/none issued to others) and are relevant and proportional. | City argued irrelevance, boilerplate objections, a seven-year records limitation, and undue burden/not reasonably accessible. | Compelled: tickets are discoverable. City must produce the tickets or provide for each ticket the date, recipient, issuing officer and ticket/docket number. City failed to substantiate burden. |
| Deposition instructions — Officer Torolski opinion testimony | Torolski's opinion (whether five officers on a DWLS case was excessive) is relevant to whether Cratty was targeted; should be allowed. | City objected to opinion testimony and counsel instructed witness not to answer (citing relevance and Rule 701/Foundation). | Ordered: produce Torolski for continued deposition limited to the opinion question. Counsel's instruction not to answer based on relevance was improper; admissibility/form of opinion addressed later. |
| Deposition instructions — Officer Sadowski notes from unrelated 2017 arrest | Cratty sought to probe Sadowski's note-taking practices to compare with Cratty's file. | City objected that the unrelated 2017 firearms arrest and notes are irrelevant and possibly pending prosecution; counsel instructed witness not to answer. | Denied: Court declined to compel production or continued deposition on that unrelated 2017 matter — too remote. |
| Discovery extension and sequencing | Needed time to take specified depositions and receive produced tickets before depositions. | City consented at hearing to limited extension. | Granted limited extension to Dec. 8, 2017; required ticket production by Nov. 28, 2017 (or at least one week before any earlier deposition) and authorized specific depositions (Mayor Peterson, Officers Reed, Kresin, and Torolski limited to opinion). |
Key Cases Cited
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (discussion of narrow construction of testimonial privileges)
- E.E.O.C. v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 621 F. Supp. 2d 603 (deliberative process privilege applies only to predecisional, deliberative materials)
- Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Labs., Inc., 320 F. R. D. 168 (district court condemnation of boilerplate discovery objections)
- In re Heparin Prods. Liab. Litig., 273 F. R. D. 399 (party asserting burden for document production must substantiate with affidavits/evidence)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700 (responding party bears burden to show expense or burden of discovery)
- Red Carpet Studios Div. of Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642 (standard for awarding sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927)