Whittum v. Saginaw County


Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Nov 22, 2005


The action was commenced on December 17, 2002, as a putative class action. Following a scheduling conference, the Court issued a pretrial scheduling order dated May 21, 2003, which set the deadline for submitting witness lists for June 10, 2003, completing discovery by July 21, 2003, and filing a motion for class certification for July 28, 2003. The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an extension of class action discovery dated July 3, 2003, but without a decision on the motion for extension, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the matter as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as required by the scheduling order. On February 3, 2004, the Court issued an order denying the discovery extension because the parties “notified the Court that they had resolved the matter.” After the hearing on the motion to certify the class and before the order denying class certification, the Court allowed the parties to file supplemental depositions as exhibits based on a stipulation of the parties. On April 2, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class because the plaintiffs’ claims were not typical and the plaintiffs were not proper representatives for the proposed subclasses.

The plaintiffs then filed a number of motions including (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [dkt # 79]; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Response to Defendants’ Objections [dkt #88]; (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Officer Records [dkt # 89]; (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiffs to Add a Damage Expert [dkt # 91]; and (5) Plaintiffs’ Motions to  Amend Complaint to Join Parties [dkt ## 93, 96]. The first discovery motion sought an order compelling the defendants to produce various internal policies and identify individuals subject to those policies in response to prior written discovery requests. The motion was referred to the magistrate judge, who entered an order granting the motion and denying it in part, to which the defendants objected. The other discovery motion seeks the production of jail records of seven individuals who are not parties to this case, although the plaintiffs also have sought leave to amend the complaint to add at least one of them as a plaintiff. On July 25, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to amend the affirmative defenses to raise issues under the PLRA.



The Court finds that this matter should proceed in its present form in which no class action has been certified, and the discovery and procedural motions are decided accordingly. The defendant’s motion to amend its affirmative defenses should be denied on the basis of futility.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order granting in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery [dkt # 79] are OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART. The magistrate judge’s discovery order [dkt # 84] is MODIFIED. The defendants shall produce all written policies described therein.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to allow a response to the defendant’s objections [dkt #88] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of officer records [dkt # 89] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions to amend the complaint [dkt ## 93, 96] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to add a damages expert [dkt # 91] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to amend affirmative defenses [dkt # 106] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the attorneys for the parties shall appear for a status conference on December 15, 2005, at 2 p.m. to discuss a schedule for resolution of the claims that remain. 

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 − 6 =