Roden v. Floyd, 2:16-cv-11208

Background

Plaintiff Jonathan Roden, a Michigan prisoner, sued MDOC employees for First Amendment retaliation after he was transferred following grievances; he later moved for sanctions and civil contempt for alleged discovery abuses.
Magistrate Judge Patti ordered supplementation of discovery, including Request No. 7 for all facility-wide J‑Pay messages from Warden Brewer to the JCF inmate population (May 1–June 7, 2015).
Defense counsel produced a single J‑Pay message (dated June 24, 2015) outside the requested date range and sent to an administrative assistant; defendants maintain it was the only responsive message and that identical messages had been sent to inmates.
Roden also alleges withheld texts and emails from MDOC employees J. Rohrig and M. Bennett and omitted emails from Defendant Floyd; he accuses defendants of making false submissions to the Court.
The Court found defendants’ production insufficient but concluded Roden failed to prove contempt or bad faith by clear and convincing evidence; the Court denied sanctions and contempt but ordered defendants to supplement the production and explain Floyd’s alleged omitted emails by April 30, 2020.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants violated the Court’s discovery order re: J‑Pay messages and are civilly contemptible	Roden: defendants disobeyed orders by producing only one nonresponsive J‑Pay message and withholding inmate messages	Defendants: produced the only responsive J‑Pay message; the Court’s order required production of J‑Pay messages only, not texts/emails	Court: No contempt or sanctions; ordered defendants to amend/supplement Request No. 7 by April 30, 2020
Whether defendants’ filings and summary‑judgment submissions were false such that Rule 11 or inherent‑power sanctions are warranted	Roden: defendants submitted false affidavits/arguments and made misleading representations to cover retaliation and mislead the Court	Defendants: disagreements and varied recollections do not establish intentional falsehoods; Rule 11 does not govern discovery responses	Court: Denied sanctions; plaintiff failed to show intentional falsity or bad faith sufficient for Rule 11 or inherent‑power sanctions
Whether defendants omitted emails in discovery (e.g., emails from Floyd) warranting Rule 37(c) sanctions	Roden: Floyd omitted responsive emails; inconsistent production suggests withheld material	Defendants: do not have access to co‑workers’ private mailboxes; some produced chains were forwards	Court: Disturbed by allegation; ordered defendants to explain why Floyd’s emails were not produced by April 30, 2020 but did not impose sanctions at this time
Whether defendants can be sanctioned for nonparty witnesses’ failure to comply with subpoenas (Rohrig, Bennett)	Roden: defendants suppressed evidence and instructed/manipulated nonparties to avoid service/compliance	Defendants: nonparty materials are not within their control; they cannot be penalized for non‑party conduct; no proof subpoenas were served	Court: No sanctions; directed Roden to properly serve subpoenas under Rule 45 and pursue contempt against nonparties if they fail to comply

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028 (6th Cir. 2007) (moving party must prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence; order must be definite and specific)
Grace v. Ctr. For Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236 (6th Cir. 1996) (ambiguities in contempt orders resolved in favor of the alleged contemnor)
United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 37(b) typically inapplicable without a court order)
First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002) (standards for Rule 11 sanctions)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent authority to sanction for bad‑faith litigation conduct)
E.E.O.C. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 295 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (discussion of Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions for failures to disclose)