Skip navigation

Federal Court Extends Discovery Cutoff Dates and Orders Michigan Jail Guard to Respond

Federal Court Extends Discovery Cutoff Dates and Orders Michigan Jail Guard to Respond

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel defendant jail guards to answer discovery requests and has granted a motion to extend discovery cutoff dates. Robert Reuther, a Michigan state prisoner, filed the motions after the defendants failed to file responses or objections to some of his interrogatories and document requests. On May 16, 2008, besides a few stipulations, the district court ordered the defendants to respond to all of Reuther’s interrogatories and document requests (“requests”) and established new discovery cutoff dates.

In 2004, Reuther was allegedly assaulted by guards at the Livingston County Jail (LCJ), where he had been incarcerated. Reuther file suit against the defendant guards in 2007, for their use of excessive force. On February 26, 2008, Reuther served the defendants with eleven interrogatories and five requests. The defendants filed objections on March 25, 2008. However, they failed to object to or answer several interrogatories and requests. Reuther then filed his motion to compel on April 4, 2008, and subsequently filed his motion to extend discovery.

The interrogatories that the defendants objected to included: (1) any lawsuits alleging the use of excessive force that any of the defendants had been a party to within the last seven years; (2) instances identified by the defendants of alleged use of excessive force at the LCJ within the last seven years; (3) incidents involving use of excessive force by any of the defendants during his employment; (4) investigations into the incidents of excessive force alleged in Reuther’s suit; (5) identification of the pretrial detainees at the LCJ on the dates of Reuther’s allegations; and (6) the names, addresses and phone numbers of the witnesses testifying at trial and the content of their testimonies.

The requests that the defendants objected to included: (1) communications by and between one defendant and any other defendant, any defendants and representative or Reuther; (2) documents resulting from Reuther’s suit; (3) statements by defendants, guards, pretrial detainees or witnesses related to Reuther’s suit; and (4) documents resulting from any alleged use of excessive force by the guards at the LCJ within the last seven years.

The defendants objected to theses interrogatories and requests as being overbroad, burdensome, irrelevant and as improperly seeking personal information of law enforcement officers and information protected by the attorney-client and executive privileges. In considering Reuther’s motion to compel, the district court held that none of the interrogatories or requests was overbroad, burdensome or irrelevant. The court stated that instances where excessive force was used are relevant and, even if not admissible, are discoverable.

The district court also determined that the defendants had raised improper attorney-client and executive privilege objections by failing to submit a privilege log as required by federal law. According to deferral law, the executive privilege protects documents revealing intra-governmental decision-making processes from disclosure in discovery. Consequently, in the district court’s order for the defendants to respond to all of Reuther’s interrogatories and requests, the defendants were permitted to redact portions of information protected under the executive privilege – which did not include factual matters.

The court also allowed the defendants to redact personal information such as addresses and phone numbers and submit a privilege log for any documents protected by attorney-client privilege. Included in the court’s order was the extension of the discovery cutoff dates. The discovery cutoff was extended to June 25, 2008, the discovery motion cutoff to July 16, 2008, and the dispositive motion cutoff to August 6, 2008.

The names of the defense lawyers were not included in the opinion and order. See: Reuther v. Chapman, U.S.D.C. (E.D. Mich.), Case no. 2:07-cv-12249-GER-MKM; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39878 ( E.D. Mich. May 16, 2008).

Related legal case

Reuther v. Chapman