UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

R. L. ROSS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14122 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

DONALD BACHAND, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

VACATE ORDER, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

 Plaintiff Rhonda L. Ross, appearing pro se, initiated this matter by filing a complaint on 

October 27, 2014. ECF No. 1. Ross then filed an amended complaint on February 2, 2015, 

claiming that Defendant Saginaw Valley State University (“SVSU”) and more than thirty named 

individuals associated with SVSU violated a plethora of her federal and state law rights when 

they denied her tenure and terminated her employment. ECF No. 23. In response, SVSU and 

some of the named defendants (the “SVSU Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss several of 

Ross’s claims on February 20, 2015. ECF No. 30. That motion was granted on April 20, 2015. 

ECF No. 51. The remaining defendants then filed a motion to dismiss several of Ross’s claims 

on June 5, 2015, which was granted in part on August 5, 2015. ECF Nos, 60, 69. 

I. 

Now before the Court are Ross’s objections to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s 

February 26, 2016 order granting the SVSU Defendants’ motion for sanctions. ECF Nos. 81, 91. 

The Magistrate Judge’s order is based on the ongoing discovery disputes between the parties, as 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 2776
- 2 - 

previously set out in this Court’s order overruling Ross’s objections to the magistrate judge’s 

order granting the SVSU Defendants’ motion to compel. ECF No. 80. For convenience, the facts 

are again set out below. 

A. 

On June 3, the SVSU Defendants served their first interrogatories and first request for 

production of documents to Ross. ECF No. 78 Ex. A. The requests sought information regarding 

(1) Health care professionals Ross had visited with during the Fall 2011 semester; (2) every 

health care professional Ross had visited in the past 10 years; (3) Ross’s outside employment 

activities while employed at SVSU; (4) Ross’s employment history since leaving SVSU; (5) 

Ross’s efforts to find employment since leaving SVSU; (6) Ross’s inability to work since leaving 

SVSU; and (7) the amount of alleged damages Ross suffered as a result of the SVSU 

Defendant’s conduct. The requests also asked Ross to produce (1) documents related to her 

efforts to obtain employment since leaving SVSU; (2) notes or memoranda related to the 

allegations in her amended complaint; (3) documents, photos, or recordings relating to the 

allegations in her amended complaint; (4) documents relied on to answer the interrogatories; (5) 

tax returns from 2010 to the present; (6) Ross’s most recent pay stub from her current 

employment; (7) any employment contracts entered into since leaving SVSU; (8) documents 

regarding Ross’s outside employment activities while employed as SVSU; and (9) Ross’s 

professional Practices Committee file as it existed April 5, 2013. Id. Ross neither objected nor 

responded to the discovery requests. 

 On June 8 2015, Ross served the SVSU Defendants with her Rule 26(a)(1)(A) 

disclosures. ECF No. 78 Ex. C. In those disclosures, Plaintiff identified 474 individuals likely to 

have discoverable information, including 164 faculty and staff members and 307 unidentified 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2777
- 3 - 

students. Id. On July 1, 2015 the SVSU Defendants asked Ross to supplement her disclosures to 

provide more specific information including the names of the 307 unidentified students. Id. at 

Ex. D. Ross responded that same day, informing the SVSU Defendants that she would work to 

narrow down the lists, and that she was “guessing I can get the faculty names to you next week 

and the student names the following week.” Id. Ross never followed up with the SVSU 

Defendants, nor did she object to their request. 

 On June 12, 2015 the SVSU Defendants sent Ross a blank medical authorization form, 

seeking to discover Ross’s medical records pursuant to Ross’s assertion of noneconomic 

damages, including emotional distress. Id. at Ex. B. Ross did not respond to the request, so on 

July 1, 2015 the SVSU Defendants requested an update as to the authorizations. Id. at Ex. 5. In 

response, Ross stated that she would not be signing the form because it was far too broad. Id. She 

argued that she had evidence of her disability and that she did not think it appropriate to allow 

Defendants access to her unrelated health information. Id. The SVSU Defendants replied that 

Ross’s medical records were relevant with regard to two issues in the case: (1) whether Ross has 

a disability under the ADA, MPWDCR, and Rehab act; and (2) Ross’s request for noneconomic 

damages, including emotional distress. Id. That same day, July 1, 2015, Ross informed the 

SVSU Defendants that she would review their arguments and get back with you next week.” Id. 

 On July 14, 2015 the SVSU Defendants requested an update from Ross. Id. at Ex. G. 

Ross responded that she had been ill and had not yet reviewed the case law, but would do so that 

week. Id. The SVSU Defendants again followed up with Ross on July 27, 2015, who responded 

that she was still ill and had been unable to complete that review or finish the interrogatories. Id. 

at Ex. H. 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 2778
- 4 - 

 On July 6, 2015 the SVSU Defendants served Ross with a second request for 

interrogatories, seeking information regarding the 473 individuals named in Plaintiff’s Rule 

26(a)(1)(A) disclosures and exhibits Ross expected to offer at trial. Id. at Ex. F. Ross did not 

respond or object to the request. 

 On August 19, 2015, the SVSU Defendants emailed Ross to request a status update 

regarding all outstanding discovery requests. Id. at Ex. I. Ross again told the SVSU Defendants 

that she was ill but would hopefully be able to respond in a week or so. Id. The SVSU 

Defendants followed up with Ross on August 27, 2015, and again on September 1, 2015, 

expressing concern with the lack of discovery progress. Ross once again responded that she had 

been ill and also claimed that she had been busy with the start of the new semester. 

B.

 The Court issued its scheduling order on September 14, 2015, which requires discovery 

to be completed by April 1, 2016. ECF No. 71. The SVSU Defendants sought additional updates 

from Plaintiff on September 15, 2015, September 22, 2015, and October 22, 2015. Id. at Ex. J. 

Because the SVSU Defendants had not received the requested discovery by the October 30, 2015 

deadline, the SVSU Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery and for costs on November 

5, 2015. ECF No. 72. Ross did not file a response to the motion. 

 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris held a hearing on the SVSU Defendants’ motion to 

compel on December 3, 2015. At the hearing, Ross acknowledged that despite her alleged 

illness she had been working as a college professor teaching classes twice a week. Tr. 20, ECF 

No. 79. The Magistrate Judge thus found that, because Ross was not disabled to the point of 

being unable to work full-time as a college professor, she had not shown good cause for her 

failure to provide discovery for a period of six-months. The Magistrate Judge also found the 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 2779
- 5 - 

discovery requests non-privileged, relevant, and proportional to the needs of the case under the 

new Rule 26. Tr. 27-30. She also found the requests for medical records proper in light of 

Plaintiff’s claims for non-economic damages and disability. Tr. 30. The Magistrate Judge 

therefore found sanctions against Ross appropriate in the form of reasonable expenses caused by 

her failure to respond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3). 

On December 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting the SVSU 

Defendants’ motion to compel and awarding sanctions. ECF No. 76. The Magistrate Judge 

ordered Ross to respond to the discovery requests within 14 days, and to pay the SVSU 

Defendants’ attorneys’ fees for bringing the motion to compel in the amount of $2,002.50 within 

21 days. Ross objected to that order on December 22, 2015. ECF No. 77. In that same filing 

Ross moved to vacate the Magistrate Judge’s order and sought a protective order. Id. Ross’s 

objections were overruled and her motion to vacate denied. See ECF No. 80. 

II. 

Ross has not complied with the Magistrate Judge’s order to respond to discovery and pay 

the required attorneys’ fees. Instead, after the SVSU Defendants filed a motion for sanctions on 

January 25, 2016, Ross attempted to appeal on February 8, 2016. See ECF Nos. 81, 85. On 

February 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the SVSU Defendants’ motion for sanctions 

and awarded attorney’s fees. ECF No. 91. Ross now objects to that order. ECF No. 98. 

The decision and order of a non-dispositive motion by a magistrate judge will be upheld 

unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(a); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 1993). A district judge shall 

consider such objections and may modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order 

found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 2780
- 6 - 

standard applies only to the magistrate judge’s factual findings; his legal conclusions are 

reviewed under the plenary ‘contrary to law’ standard . . . . Therefore, [the reviewing court] 

must exercise independent judgment with respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.” 

Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D. Mich. 1995) (citing Gandee v. 

Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)). “‘An order is contrary to law when it fails to 

apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Mattox v. Edelman, 2014 

WL 4829583, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2014) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 2009 

WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2009)). 

A. 

In her objections, Ross first argues that the proceeding should be stayed and discovery 

deadlines extended pending her appeal. Ross’s appeal is improper for two reasons: (1) she is not 

appealing a final judgment; and (2) she has not obtained this Court’s certification of an 

interlocutory appeal. See Starcher v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., 144 F.3d 418, 422 (6th 

Cir. 1998) (holding that “discovery orders are generally not final decisions and cannot be 

reviewed unless the trial court enters a final judgment disposing of all claims.”) (citing 

Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117 (1906)); See also U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes 

Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 444 F.3d 462, 472 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[D]iscovery orders are 

generally not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”). As explained by the Sixth 

Circuit, “the rule laid out in Alexander—that an individual seeking to appeal a discovery order 

must first disobey the order and suffer a contempt citation—remains the general rule today.” 

Pogue, 444 F.3d at 472. Ross’s motion for a stay of proceedings and extension to the scheduling 

order will be denied and this Court therefore retains jurisdiction to enforce its previous order. 

B.

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 2781
- 7 - 

Ross’s next objection, that the Magistrate Judge is impermissibly playing doctor and 

finding her not ill, misunderstands the burdens of proof in this case, and goes to the heart of 

Defendants’ discovery requests. There is no presumption that Ross is disabled in this matter. 

Instead, it is Ross’s burden to prove that she is in fact disabled and that she actually suffered 

emotional distress from Defendants’ actions. Without any such proof, Ross’s claims that she was 

too ill to act throughout a large portion of the discovery period do not substantially justify her 

failure to respond, especially where she herself admits that she continued to work full-time as a 

professor. Tr. 20. As noted in this Court’s previous order, she is also estopped from arguing that 

the discovery was objectionable because she did not have a motion for a protective order pending 

at the time of the SVSU Defendant’s motion to compel or the Magistrate Judge’s ruling thereon. 

Rule 37(d)(2). 

C. 

Ross’s third objection is that monetary sanctions are inappropriate because Defendants’ 

conduct in pursuing discovery is unlawful. Both the Magistrate Judge and this Court have 

already found this assertion to be without merit. While Ross may choose to continue ignoring 

Defendants’ discovery requests and Court orders, she should be aware that such a choice may 

result in further sanctions, up to and including dismissal. For the present time, the Magistrate 

Judge’s decision to impose further monetary sanctions is entirely appropriate, and even 

mandatory, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). 

D. 

 Ross also argues that the imposition of sanctions on pro se plaintiffs is inherently unjust 

because pro se parties are not granted attorney fees for “vexatious and multiplicative proceeding 

induced by the Defendants.” The Sixth Circuit has already held that sanctions in the form of 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 2782
- 8 - 

attorney’s fees on pro se litigants may be appropriate, especially where the pro se party has some 

familiarity with the federal rules of civil procedure. Mehr v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts 

Worldwide, Inc., 72 F. App'x 276 (6th Cir. 2003). There is no dispute that Ross, a licensed 

attorney, is familiar with the federal rules of civil procedure. 

E. 

Finally, the award of expenses under Rule 37(d)(3) is not unjust. The SVSU Defendants 

provided Ross with ample time to respond to their discovery requests and gave her advanced 

notice that they would be filing a motions to compel and motions for sanctions. The Magistrate 

Judge’s first order compelling discovery set out clear dates and deadlines for Ross to respond to 

Defendants’ discovery requests and pay attorneys’ fees. See ECF No. 76. Because Ross’s refusal 

to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order led to the SVSU Defendants’ increased litigation 

expenses, it is not unjust to require Ross to bear those expenses. 

The Magistrate Judge’s order granting the SVSU Defendants’ motion for sanctions was 

neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and therefore Ross’s objections will be overruled. 

Her motion to vacate, motion for a protective order, and motion for a stay of proceedings will be 

denied. 

III.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ross’s objections, ECF No. 98 are OVERRULED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Ross’s motion to vacate the Magistrate Judge’s order 

granting the SVSU Defendants’ motion for sanctions and payment of expenses, ECF No. 98, is 

DENIED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Ross’s motion for a protective order, ECF No. 98, is 

DENIED. 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 2783
- 9 - 

 It is further ORDERED that Ross’s motion for a stay of proceedings, ECF No. 98, is 

DENIED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Ross’s motion for an extension of discovery deadline, ECF 

No. 98, is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 22, 2016 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 22, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN 

1:14-cv-14122-TLL-PTM Doc # 101 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 2784