UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAVID ST. ANN, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

TODD MCLEAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 5:15-11770 

District Judge Judith Levy 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS (DE 37) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of pro se Plaintiff David St. 

Ann’s motion for production of documents. (DE 37.) For the reasons that follow, 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS PREMATURE. 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this 

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various correctional officials, originally 

alleging claims regarding his remaining at Level IV (or maximum security/ 

disciplinary unit) following the February 14, 2014 expiration of his detention and 

loss of privileges. The Court has granted in part Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (DE 29), which resulted in the dismissal of many of Plaintiff’s original 

causes of action. Recently, however, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second motion 

5:15-cv-11770-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 12/14/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 718
2

for leave to amend his complaint, which added another Defendant and a retaliation 

cause of action. (DE 30.) 

 Plaintiff filed this motion for production of documents on December 5, 

2016. (DE 37.) In his motion, he asks Defendants to provide him with various 

items, such as incident reports and misconduct tickets. However, though styled a 

motion, DE 37 is actually a request for production of documents directed to 

Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Rule 34 requires a party to request 

documents, after which the party to whom the request is made has thirty days to 

either provide the documents or to object to doing so, with reasons given as to the 

grounds for the objection(s). This stage of the process does not involve the Court, 

meaning that Plaintiff’s motion is prematurely filed as Defendants have not yet 

responded to the discovery requests (nor has the time for doing so under Rule 34 

expired). In short, as a general matter, the Court should not be involved in routine 

discovery requests. 

If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendants’ forthcoming Rule 34 response(s), 

he must confer in good faith with Defendants’ counsel to attempt to resolve 

amicably the dispute(s) before seeking relief from the Court. See Rule 37(a)(1) 

(“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order 

compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that 

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or 

5:15-cv-11770-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 12/14/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 719
3

party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court 

action.”); Local Rule 37.1 (“With respect to all motions to compel discovery, 

counsel for each of the parties or a party without counsel shall confer in advance of 

the hearing in a good faith effort to narrow the areas of disagreement. *** It shall 

be the responsibility of counsel for the movant or a party without counsel to 

arrange for the conference.”). In addition, my Practice Guidelines, available at 

www.mied.uscourts.gov, also contain detailed instructions on what actions parties 

must take both prior to and after a motion to compel is filed. Plaintiff is cautioned 

that his pro se status does not excuse him from complying with all applicable 

Federal Rules of Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Local Rules and the 

Practice Guidelines of the presiding judicial officers. 

Because there is no actual controversy or discovery dispute necessitating 

action by the Court, Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 14, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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

December 14, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

5:15-cv-11770-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 12/14/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 720