1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL KITCHEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action No: 14-12883 

v. Hon. Victoria A. Roberts 

DANIEL HEYNS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 __________________________/ 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

DECISION [Doc.137] AND UPHOLDING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SUBPOENAS AND EXTEND DISCOVERY [Doc.136] 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Michael A. Kitchen (“Kitchen”) filed a motion to enforce subpoenas 

requesting documents relating to grievances and transfer orders at the Michigan 

Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Magistrate Judge David Grand entered an 

opinion and order GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the motion. Kitchen 

timely objected; his objections are fully briefed. 

II. Background 

Kitchen filed a pro se civil rights complaint against numerous defendants. On 

October 4, 2017, the Court conducted an on the record hearing regarding his Motion to 

Enforce Subpoenas and Extend Discovery. The Court required the Defendants to 

produce all orders authorizing Kitchen’s transfer, staff meeting minutes that contain or 

reflect harassment/ retaliation against any prisoners by the Defendants, and documents 

reflecting rules and eligibility for the Violence Prevention Program (“VPP”). [Doc. 136, 
2

Pg 2].The Court also stated that Kitchen may depose the “MDOC representative who is 

most knowledgeable of VPP generally.” Id. Magistrate Judge Grand denied Kitchen’s 

other requests because they sought information not relevant to the claims or defenses. 

III. Standard of Review 

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive decision, the 

reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge's ruling unless the objecting party 

demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A finding is “clearly erroneous” when, after reviewing the record in 

its entirety, the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake” was 

made. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 33 U.S. 364, 395(1948). When two 

outcomes are possible, the Court cannot reverse a magistrate judge's decision simply 

because it would have decided the matter differently. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 

N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573–74 (1985). 

IV. Analysis 

Kitchen fails to meet his burden to show that Magistrate Grand’s order was 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Kitchen states two objections. First, he objects to 

the Magistrate’s finding that the request for transfer orders for all prisoners who filed 

grievances for the ten-year period from 2005-2015 is not relevant and therefore, not 

discoverable. [Doc. 137, Pg 2]. Kitchen says that the transfer orders are relevant 

because they will “identify potential witnesses and information to rebut affidavits 

submitted by the Defendants.” [Doc. 137, Pg 2]. 

Magistrate Judge Grand reasoned that the requested information would 

necessitate gathering information on individuals not involved in the transfer in question, 

and would allow exploration of circumstances having nothing to do with the allegations 
3

in this case. [Doc 136, Pg 3]. Rule 26(b)(1) requires that discovery be relevant and 

proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Magistrate Grand correctly 

determined the transfer orders are not discoverable, and his determination is not 

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 

Second, Kitchen objects to the Magistrate’s finding that the request for the 

number of grievances filed within the MDOC broken down by facility for the period of 

2004-2014 is not discoverable. Kitchen says that if a low volume of grievances filed at 

Macomb Correctional Facility is shown, it will demonstrate that prison officials 

suppressed grievances by prisoners other than him. [Doc 137, Pg 3]. 

Magistrate Judge Grand reasoned that the requested information is overly broad 

and seeks irrelevant information. [Doc 136, Pg 3]. There are 30 or so prisons in MDOC 

and most of those facilities are not involved in this case. [Doc 127, Pg 10]. Kitchen has 

not convinced the Court that this request is relevant. 

V. Conclusion 

Magistrate Judge Grand’s decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to 

law. The Court OVERRULES Kitchen’s objections and UPHOLDS the Magistrate 

Judge’s opinion and order. 

 IT IS ORDERED. 

S/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Judge 

Dated: May 3, 2018 
4

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this 

document was served on the attorneys of record 

and Michael Kitchen by electronic means or U.S. 

Mail on May 3, 2018. 

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk