UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARNELL BROWN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 4:14-cv-14350 

v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

NICOLE CARTER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE 

CONSIDERATION (DE 29) 

 Plaintiff Darnell Brown, who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, filed a document titled “Motion for Immediate Consideration” on July 6, 

2015. (DE 29.) In his motion, he asserts that Defendant failed to respond to his 

discovery requests by the discovery cut-off date of June 29, 2015 and asks the 

Court to: 1) sanction Defendant in the amount of $3,000 for prejudicing Plaintiff 

and making him unable to amend his complaint; and 2) order Defendant to produce 

the requested discovery. Defendant, who is now represented by counsel, timely 

responded to the motion on August 17, 2015, arguing that he has complied with all 

of Plaintiff’s reasonable requests for discovery and asserting that Plaintiff is 

engaging in a “fishing expedition” for irrelevant items. (DE 38.) In addition, 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 41 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 108
2

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced as a result of the 

discovery issues because he may file a motion to amend his pleadings at any time. 

On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed his reply, in which he again argues that 

Defendant has not complied with his discovery requests and clarifies that he needs 

the requested discovery in order to properly amend his complaint. (DE 40.) In 

addition, he attaches as an exhibit the discovery requests he has made upon 

Defendant, and to which he asserts Defendant has not provided any responses. (Id. 

at ¶ 2.) 

 Because the purpose of Plaintiff’s motion appears to be to compel Defendant 

to provide discovery requests, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a 

motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Pursuant to 

Rule 37(a), a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery 

where the opposing party has failed to 1) make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a) 

or 2) provide a discovery response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). 

 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff misstates the discovery deadline in his 

motion. The Court required the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) on or before June 28, 2015. (DE 25.) The discovery 

period ends on January 28, 2016. The Court did not, as Plaintiff suggests, tell the 

parties that “all discovery had to be completed by June 29, 2015.” (DE 29 at ¶ 2.) 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 41 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 109
3

It thus appears that Plaintiff is confusing the initial disclosures required under Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) with the remainder of the discovery period. 

 The initial disclosures required by the Court to be exchanged on or before 

July 28, 2015 are the following: 

 (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each 

individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the 

subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to 

support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for 

impeachment; 

(ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all 

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that 

the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may 

use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely 

for impeachment; 

(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the 

disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and 

copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, 

unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each 

computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and 

extent of injuries suffered. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). A review of the discovery requests Plaintiff 

filed as exhibits to his reply demonstrate that the requests at issue are not items 

subject to initial disclosure. For example, Plaintiff seeks the production of a video 

recording of the restaurant from June 2014 and notes written by a non-party 

employee concerning Plaintiff. In addition, he propounds interrogatories related to 

cash transactions in the restaurant, the sexual harassment alleged in Plaintiff’s 

complaint, and Defendant’s interactions with Plaintiff’s wife and children. (DE 40 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 41 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 110
4

at 3-7.) Accordingly, from the information Plaintiff has provided, Defendant has 

not violated the Court’s order by failing to provide initial disclosures by the 

deadline and the Court declines to impose any sanctions. 

 It appears that, instead, the parties are having a discovery dispute. The 

Court has not been provided with sufficient information, however, to adjudicate 

such a dispute. For example, while Defendant asserts that he will respond to any 

requests the Court deems necessary, it is not clear which responses have not been 

addressed. It is also unclear to the Court whether either side has provided initial 

disclosures pursuant to Rule 26. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the 

information sought in his discovery requests is relevant, but does not describe how 

or to which claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice 

to refiling a motion that complies with Rule 37, E.D. Mich. LR 37.1, and my 

practice guideline titled “Discovery.” (DE 29.) However, the parties are 

cautioned that they are expected to work collaboratively throughout the 

discovery process and attempt to resolve any differences before bringing those 

issues to the Court for disposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 28, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 41 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 111
5

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on August 28, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 41 Filed 08/28/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 112