UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ERIC SANTIFER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

INERGY AUTOMOTIVE 

SYSTEMS, LLC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 5:15-cv-11486 

District Judge Judith E. Levy 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL (DE 32)

 Plaintiff, Eric Santifer, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, 

filed a document he titled “Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion to Compel the Court to 

Continue Claims/Complaints Against the Defendants” on May 31, 2016. (DE 28.) 

In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to provide responses to 

his interrogatories and documents responsive to his requests for production of 

documents. Specifically, he contends that Defendants have not provided personnel 

files, documentation related to his employment, and training documents. In 

addition, Plaintiff provides a brief description of his case and notes that because 

Defendants “failed to comply with Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Production of 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 427
2 

Document Requests,” they should be barred from introducing certain evidence into 

the record. (Id. at 4.) 

 Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on May 31, 2016. (DE 

29.) On June 2, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel, arguing that the motion to compel was filed because defense counsel 

notified Plaintiff that they would be filing a dispositive motion. Defendants assert 

that Plaintiff’s motion is more properly filed as a response to their motion for 

summary judgment. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

untimely, noting that discovery closed on February 9, 2016. Finally, Defendants 

object to Plaintiff’s attempt to limit evidence at trial at this time. 

 On June 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants motion, in which 

he admits that his motion to compel was not filed properly as a dispositive motion, 

and indicates that he will respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

(DE 36.) Plaintiff timely filed his response to the motion for summary judgment 

on July 5, 2016. (DE 37.) 

 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion, despite its unartful title, as a 

motion to compel. Although Plaintiff does, to some extent, attempt to argue the 

substantive merits of his case, the Court cannot ignore the information contained 

on pages 1-2 of his motion, in which he points to specific discovery requests and 

asserts that he did not receive responses. Accordingly, despite the nomenclature 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 428
3 

used, Plaintiff’s motion is not dispositive and will not be treated as such. See 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (The Court holds pro se pleadings to 

“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”). 

 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED. The Court will hear 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, specifically the assertions made on pages 1-2 that 

Defendants have failed to respond to interrogatories and to produce documents 

requested, as planned on July 26, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. (DE 31.) Defendants may 

file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel ON OR BEFORE JULY 22, 2016. 

Alternatively, Defendants may rely on sections II and III of their motion to strike, 

which address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 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 July 14, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

 

5:15-cv-11486-JEL-APP Doc # 41 Filed 07/13/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 429