UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HOXIE,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10725

vs. DISTRICT GEORGE CARAM STEEH

LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER (DOCKET NO. 85)

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order filed on

March 29, 2010. (Docket no. 85). Plaintiff filed a Response To Livingston County Defendants’

Motion For Protective Order Regarding Livingston County Defendants’ Personnel Files [Doc. #85]

on April 12, 2010. (Docket no. 94). All discovery motions have been referred to the undersigned

for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. 41). The Court

disposes with oral argument on this matter pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). The matter being fully

briefed, the motion is now ready for ruling. 

The Livingston County Defendants (all defendants except Sheryl Simpson, D.O., hereinafter

“Defendants”) seek a protective order to prevent disclosure of records. As Defendants point out in

their motion, this Court entered an Order on December 22, 2009 which ordered Defendants to

produce the personnel files which contain the documents at issue in Defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order. (Docket no. 57). The Court also ordered that certain confidential and personal

information be redacted from the files. Defendants now argue that some of the documents in the file

-1-
are irrelevant and seek a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent production of

the documents. Defendants provided with their motion a list of approximately thirty-three

documents for which they seek a protective order. (Docket no. 85-2).

As Plaintiff points out, Defendants argued relevance, or the lack thereof, of the personnel

files at the hearing held on December 16, 2009. The matter was fully briefed and argued at that

time. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order was filed more than five months after the October

20, 2009 due date for Defendants’ responses and objections to the discovery requests at issue, more

than four months after the due date for their response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, more than

three months after the hearing on this matter and, finally, more than two months after the Courtordered deadline for producing the personnel files. (Docket no. 57). These facts alone should put

a period at the end of the issue of the personnel files. 

Defendants have failed to show how producing the documents at issue within the parameters

of the December 22, 2009 Opinion and Order meets the standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(1) for issuance of a protective order. Defendants have not shown that production would cause

a party or person annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c)(1). Defendants’ “relevance” argument is an objection that should have been raised at the

time of responding to the Request for Production and, to the extent that it was timely raised, the

Court overruled the objection with its December 22, 2009 Opinion and Order. 

It is worth noting that a review of the list of withheld documents shows that while some of

the documents appear to be more than twenty years old and others relate to pay increase issues, it

is not clear that all of the documents on the list are irrelevant, for example, memos relating to an

arrest and locking of a cell door may be relevant to prior disciplinary action, practice and procedure

-2-
at the Defendant County. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (Docket no. 85-2). The Court also notes that

while the December 22, 2009 Order allowed Defendants to produce a privilege log for documents

to which they claim a privilege, privilege is not at issue here. 

The Court also finds that Defendants have not shown good cause for this untimely request

for a protective order for these documents and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is

substantively a motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2009 Opinion and Order1. The Court

also notes that the District Court overruled Defendants’ objections to the December 22, 2009

Opinion and Order. (Docket no. 68). 

The Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Defendants will produce

the documents at issue within seven days of entry of this Order. Consistent with the Court’s prior

Order (docket no. 57), Defendants will redact all “personal or confidential information, including

Social Security Numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, medical information, and

insurance information.” (Docket no. 57). The Court finds that salary information and amounts fall

within the purview of the personal and confidential information which Defendants were ordered to

redact and the Court will order Defendants to do so. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(5)(A)(iii). Any further failure by Defendants to comply with the Court’s December 22,

2009 Opinion and Order will result in sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). 

1

 Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) a party can file a motion for

rehearing or reconsideration within 14 days of entry of a judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). 

Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that in a motion for reconsideration, “[t]he movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be

heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a

different disposition of the case.” Defendants have met neither the timeline for requesting

reconsideration nor the required demonstration of a defect. 

-3-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order (docket

no. 85) is DENIED and the Livingston County Defendants will produce to Plaintiff within seven

days of entry of this order the documents which appear on the letter dated January 15, 2010 (docket

no. 85-2), in redacted form as set forth herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs is

DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date

of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible

under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: July 14, 2010 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Counsel of

Record on this date.

Dated: July 14, 2010 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-4-