UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL LINDSAY,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-12229

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

CITY OF DETROIT, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS [R. 14]

Plaintiff Darryl Lindsay brought this action on June 18, 2015 against 

the City of Detroit and Detroit police officer Darrell Dawson (“Defendants”)

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights when Dawson shot his dog while conducting an exterior 

search on his property. The Honorable Victoria A. Roberts referred this 

action to the undersigned to resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). [R. 12]. 

On September 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Plan, 

providing that they would exchange initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1) that same day. [R. 11]. However, Defendants failed to produce 

their initial disclosures, and on September 24, 2015, Lindsay filed a motion 

2:15-cv-12229-VAR-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 336
2

to compel initial disclosures and for Rule 37 sanctions. [R. 14]. 

Defendants responded on September 29, 2015, indicating that they 

provided Lindsay with their initial disclosures on September 28. [R. 17, 

PgID 251]. 

On October 1, 2015, the Court held an on-the-record scheduling 

conference, at which Lindsay’s counsel (Christopher Olson) and 

Defendants’ counsel (Sally Moore) appeared. During the conference, 

Lindsay’s counsel said Defendants’ disclosures were deficient for four 

reasons: (1) the disclosures indicated they were only one defendant’s 

disclosures without stating which defendant’s they were; (2) they only 

contained the names of five potential witnesses, despite a video of the 

incident showing approximately 20 officers present at the scene; (3) they 

fail to provide any information regarding Defendants’ insurance policies; 

and (4) many of the disclosed documents have information redacted. 

During the hearing, the Court concluded that Defendants’ initial 

disclosures were deficient.1

 When a party fails to disclose information 

required by Rule 26(a), Rule 37(c)(1) “mandates that a trial court punish 

[that] party for [the] discovery violations ... unless the violation was 

 1 The Court agreed with each of Lindsay’s complaints except with respect to 

the question regarding Defendants’ insurance policies. Defendants’ 

counsel confirmed on the record that the City of Detroit is self-insured.

2:15-cv-12229-VAR-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 337
3

harmless or is substantially justified.” Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of 

Virginia, Inc., 325 F.3d 776, 782 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The 

primary punishment contemplated by the rule is precluding the use of the 

omitted evidence at trial, but a court may order other specified sanctions as 

well. Rule 37(c)(1). Defendants claim they failed to timely serve initial 

disclosure because they are unfamiliar with Rule 26 and federal court 

practice. These are not substantial justifications for their noncompliance. 

However, Defendants’ noncompliance was harmless because there is 

ample time before the close of discovery for them to disclose the required 

information, so Lindsay will not be prejudiced. Thus, sanctions are not 

warranted. 

Accordingly, Lindsay’s motion to compel and for sanctions [R. 14] is 

GRANTED IN PART. Per the parties’ agreement, Defendants must serve 

amended initial disclosures on Lindsay that comply with Rule 26(a)(1) by 

OCTOBER 12, 2015. Disclosures must be made on behalf of both 

defendants, and the documents produced must either be unredacted or

include a privilege log to justify each redaction. Additionally, Defendants

must provide the name, address, and telephone number of each officer and 

any other known witnesses who were present at the scene of the 

underlying incident. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(a)(i). Finally, Defendants 

2:15-cv-12229-VAR-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 338
4

must make reasonable inquiries to include any other disclosures required 

by Rule 26(a)(1); the Court’s list above is not exhaustive. Further failure to 

comply with the rules of discovery may result in sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 1, 2015

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, 

the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’ 

obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 1, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12229-VAR-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 339