UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK SHALTRY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number 09-10609-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CITY OF SAGINAW,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING PRIOR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN

LIMINE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

On May 21, 2010, this Court issued an order granting Defendant City of Saginaw’s

(“Defendant” or “the City”) motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff Patrick Shaltry’s (“Plaintiff”) new

theory of damages [Dkt. # 29]. Plaintiff advanced this theory of damages at a facilitation proceeding

held on or about April 16, 2010. The theory actually has two facets. First, Plaintiff contends that

he should be permitted to offer an expert’s opinion that future employers would be less likely to hire

him because he has sued a former employer. Second, that after Plaintiff’s employment was

terminated, Defendant’s employees communicated adverse information to employers where Plaintiff

was seeking employment. The Court found that “to the extent that Plaintiff’s new ‘theory of

damages’ was properly characterized as such, rather than an independent cause of action not

plead[ed] in the complaint, it was never reasonably disclosed.” [Dkt. # 29]. 

The case initially proceeded to trial on June 8, 2010. On the third day of trial, it became

apparent to the Court that the case could not be tried in the number of days anticipated, and a

mistrial was declared. It was also made apparent during the trial that the parties disagreed about how

the arbitration award, which converted Plaintiff’s discharge into a disciplinary leave of absence
providing that he is to be reinstated when he becomes physically and mentally fit for duty, affects

the case. The Court directed the parties to address whether this information impacted Plaintiff’s

cause of action or theory of damages, whether this information should be furnished to the jury, or

whether there were any other legal implications as to Plaintiff’s claims. [Dkt. # 40]. Discovery and

motion practice was then reopened with respect to these limited issues.

I

After discovery was reopened, Defendant sent Plaintiff a discovery request asking, in

relevant part, if “the City of Saginaw, or any employee or representative provided adverse

information to any prospective employer regarding your employment with the City of Saginaw” and

the “[n]ame of the person(s) who supplied the information.” [Dkt. # 51 Ex. A]. Plaintiff responded

that the name of the person or persons who supplied such information is “[u]nknown at this time.”

[Dkt. # 51 Ex. A]. Defendant also asked if “any prospective employer told [Plaintiff that] they have

received any information from the City of Saginaw regarding [Plaintiff’s] employment with the

City?” [Dkt. # 51 Ex. A]. Plaintiff responded that “[n]o one has directly told [him] they received

information” but that it was very “clear information was conveyed.” [Dkt. # 51 Ex. A]. Although

Plaintiff suggests that there have been communications between the City and his prospective

employers, he acknowledges no evidence to support this belief. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s new theory

of damages on this issue is unrelated to and do not arise naturally from his causes of action under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., or the Michigan Elliot-Larsen

Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq. As a result, the Court’s prior order GRANTING

Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s new theory of damages is

AFFIRMED. 
II

Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel production of documents on December 6, 2010 [Dkt.

# 45]. Plaintiff’s motion requests that the Court compel Defendant to produce information requested

on October 20, 2010 regarding a taser incident involving Sergeant Tuer that occurred at the 2010

Summer Outdoor Film Festival. Plaintiff asserts that this information is necessary to determine

what, if any, discipline Sergeant Tuer received as a result of the taser incident. However, Plaintiff

does not explain how this event, which post-dates the complaint in this action, relates to the causes

of action pleaded. Moreover, the discovery cutoff date in this action was extended to December 30,

2009, and limited discovery was later allowed through August 6, 2010 on the issue of how the

arbitrator’s decision in this case affects Plaintiff’s causes of action or new theory of damages. [Dkt.

# 40]. Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, which falls outside the scope of the limited

discovery, was made after both of these discovery cutoff dates had passed. As a result, Plaintiff’s

motion to compel is untimely and will thus be DENIED.

III

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Court’s prior order granting Defendant’s motion in

limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s new theory of damages [Dkt. # 29] is AFFIRMED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Dkt. # 45] is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 20, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was

served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means

or first class U.S. mail on January 20, 2011.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS