UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CUREN ESSEX ET AL., 

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

LIVINGSTON COUNTY ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS.

________________________________/

CASE NO. 09-11095

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LIVINGSTON COUNTY’S OBJECTIONS

[166] AND [183]

Introduction

Before the Court are Defendants Livingston County’s Objections [166] and [183].

Defendants Livingston County and Sheriff Robert Bezotte first Objection [166] to the

November 6, 2012 Order [162] of the Magistrate Judge, filed on November 20, 2012.

Magistrate Judge Komives’ Order [162] resolved in part, granted in part, deemed moot in

part, and denied without prejudice in part, Plaintiff Terrell’s Third Motion to Compel

Discovery, For Appropriate Sanctions, and for an Expedited Ruling [152], filed on

September 25, 2012. Magistrate Judge Komives held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion [152]

on November 6, 2012. Defendants filed Objections [166] on November 20, 2012. Plaintiff

Terrell filed a Response [169] to Defendants’ Objections [166] on December 3, 2012. On

May 17, 2013, this Court entered an Order [176] dismissing Defendant Bezotte from this

case. Defendant Livingston County filed an additional Objection [183] on June 20, 2013.

Plaintiff Terrell filed a Response [184] on July 1, 2013.

2:09-cv-11095-AJT-PJK Doc # 187 Filed 07/09/13 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 2712
Defendant Livingston County argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Order [162], which

permits four additional depositions and the continuation of the deposition of Sheriff Bezotte,

violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) and 26(b)(2). Defendant

also Objects [183] to Plaintiffs’ deposition of former Livingston County Deputy Charlotte

Cottingim on the same basis.

For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Objections [166] and [183] are DENIED.

Analysis

This Court “may reconsider any pretrial matter...where it has been shown that the

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

A finding is clearly erroneous when, “although there is evidence to support the finding, the

Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

United States v. Lucas, 640 F.3d 168, 173 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. City of

Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). The matter now before the Court,

concerning discovery depositions, falls within the scope of the pretrial matters described by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) regulates the taking of

depositions, and requires that a party:

obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent

with Rule 26(b)(2):

(A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and:

(i) the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being taken under

this rule or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by the third-party

defendants; [or]

(ii) the deponent has already been deposed in the case.

2

2:09-cv-11095-AJT-PJK Doc # 187 Filed 07/09/13 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2713
Rule 26(b)(2) requires the Court to limit discovery if it should find that:

(i)the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or

less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Defendant Livingston County first objects to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s

Order [162] allowing the deposition of Police Officers Davis, Hairston, Thompson and

Barkey. Defendant argues that these depositions would result in the taking of more than ten

depositions. In its second Objection [183], Defendant makes the same argument in opposition

of the deposition of former deputy Cottingim. However, Defendant fails to show why this

Court should limit this discovery under any of the factors listed within Rule 26(b)(2).

Because Plaintiff has sought leave of the Court to take these additional depositions, and

because there is no reason to limit this discovery, Defendant’s objections are DENIED.

Defendant then objects to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order [162] permitting

redeposition of Sheriff Bezotte. Plaintiff first deposed Bezotte’s on August 24, 2011, prior

to Defendant’s production of a memorandum written by Bezotte and sent to Defendant Boos.

Plaintiff acknowledges that it seeks redeposition based on the production of this document.

Defendant argues that the information Plaintiff seeks from this redeposition has already been

obtained through written interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant also argues

that redeposition is overly burdensome. Magistrate Judge Komives considered these

3

2:09-cv-11095-AJT-PJK Doc # 187 Filed 07/09/13 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 2714
arguments during the hearing held on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [152]. Because Defendant

has failed to show that the Order [162] allowing redeposition of Sheriff Bezotte is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law, Defendant’s second objection is also DENIED.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections [166] to the Magistrate

Judge’s Order [152] are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection [183] to Plaintiffs’

deposition of former Livingston County Deputy Charlotte Cottingim is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 9, 2013

4

2:09-cv-11095-AJT-PJK Doc # 187 Filed 07/09/13 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 2715