UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HOXIE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-10725 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

LIVINGSTON COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING LIVINGSTON COUNTY DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS (# 61)

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECEMBER 22, 2009 ORDER (# 57)

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Defendants Livingston County, Sheriff Robert Bezotte, Undersheriff Michael Murphy,

Jail Administrator Lt. Thomas Cremonte, Matthew Hoffman, Matthew Young, Cheryl Miks,

Nicole Otten, Kasey Howe, Gerald Boyer, Deputy Sgt. York, Deputy Berry, Michael Cortez,

Jason Davis, Kirk Daniels, and Deputy Jackson (collectively "Livingston County") object to

Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub's December 22, 2009 Order granting in part plaintiff

Gregory Hoxie's First Motion to Compel Discovery (# 39). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R.

7.1(e)(2), it is ORDERED that the objections be resolved without oral argument.

I. Background

Hoxie alleges in his First Amended Complaint that, while incarcerated in Kentucky

on July 25, 2005, he suffered a broken nose, a broken cheek bone, and a brain bleed.

Hoxie was allegedly extradited from Kentucky to Michigan, and arrived at the Livingston

County Jail on August 27, 2005. Hoxie alleges Jail staff failed to complete a Pre-Intake

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 701
2

sheet concerning medical information. Hoxie alleges a "medical screening for non-violent

offenders" completed on August 27, 2005 incorrectly reported that he was in good health

with no visual signs of trauma, while omitting that he had been recently hospitalized in

Kentucky, suffered a brain injury, and had a painful dental condition. Hoxie alleges it was

not until September 8, 2005 that he was interviewed by a nurse, who noted that he had

suffered a skull fracture, broken nose, facial fractures, and a cracked molar on August 1,

2005, resulting in blurred vision and severe migraine headache pain. Hoxie alleges he

received no medical care at the Jail, and was again examined on September 12, 2005,

revealing essentially the same medical conditions. Hoxie alleges he again received no

medical treatment, and was placed in the Jail's general population.

Hoxie continues by alleging that, on March 18, 2006, he was placed in a Jail visiting

booth with inmate Ryan Backus, an inmate assigned to "medium security," although known

for violent assaultive behavior. Backus allegedly assaulted Hoxie in the visiting booth,

causing Hoxie to sustain new facial fractures, a broken nose, "and either aggravation of his

pre-existing head injury, or a new traumatic brain injury." Hoxie alleges he did not receive

emergency medical care after the assault despite his continuing complaints of increased

blurred vision and head pain. Hoxie alleges he was finally examined by defendant Dr.

Susan Simpson on March 21, 2006, who reported Hoxie had a "possible blow out fracture."

Hoxie was allegedly transferred to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital where he was diagnosed with

a crushed eye socket and broken nose. Hoxie alleges surgery was performed to repair his

broken nose in April 2006, but that his traumatic brain injury was not addressed. Hoxie

alleges he continued to complain to Jail personnel over the next two months about severe

headaches, facial pain, dizziness, ringing in the ears, and blurred vision, all without

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 702
3

receiving appropriate medical care. Hoxie was allegedly diagnosed with Tinnitus on May

19, 2006, with a follow-up recommendation that he see a specialist and receive

rehabilitation. Hoxie alleges that, instead of receiving medical attention, he was discharged

from incarceration at 12:30 a.m. on May 23, 2006, and driven to a remote part of town

without proper clothing or regard for his medical conditions. Hoxie alleges 42 U.S.C. §

1983 claims of Eight Amendment violations based on Livingston County's failure to properly

screen, classify, and segregate dangerous inmates, deliberate indifference to the risk that

he would be assaulted by a dangerous inmate, and deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs. 

II. Objections 

Livingston County objects to that part of Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub's

December 22, 2009 Order granting in part Hoxie's motion to compel and ordering

Livingston County to produce: (1) Jail Cell Assignment Sheets from August 25, 2005

through September 5, 2005, December 1, 2005 through December 15, 2005, January 25,

2006 through February 10, 2006, and March 15, 2006 through May 25, 2006; (2) all last

known addresses of Jail inmates from the same time periods; (3) Mail Jail Logs and Health

Care Logs from August 27, 2005 through May 23, 2006; (4) all grievances/complaints, and

prior lawsuits filed against the individual Livingston County defendants, as appear in each

defendant's personnel file; (5) all records of Michigan Department of Corrections visits for

accreditations or investigations of the Livingston County Jail, as the assessments appear

on the Jail's website, and accreditation reports for the years 2001 through 2006; and (6) all

prior lawsuits involving each Livingston County defendant, as appear in each defendant's

personnel file. Livingston County also objects to that part of the Order requiring Livingston

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 703
4

County to produce: (1) the inmate list or daily list of inmates for each day from February 1,

2006 through May 24, 2006; (2) a list of all inmates on the same cell block, tier, or hallway

as Hoxie from February 1, 2006 through May 23, 2006; (3) a copy of Hoxie's cell

assignments from August 27, 2005 through May 24, 2006; (4) a list of all cell assignments,

including detention/segregation, for inmate Backus from January 1, 2006 through May 24,

2006; (5) a list of all other inmates scheduled for visitors on March 18, 2006, a list of all

visitors, and a copy of the March 18, 2006 visitor sign-in log; and (6) records in any form

relevant to this requested information. 

A district court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive

order, and shall modify or set aside any portion of the order found to be clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A ruling is clearly

erroneous if, upon review of the record, the district court is left with a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made. Patterson v. Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP,

225 F.R.D. 204, 205 (N.D.Ohio 2004) (quoting United States v. Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 756

(6th Cir.2000)). "A district court enjoys broad discretion in managing discovery." Suntrust

Bank v. Blue Water Fiber, L.P., 210 F.R.D. 196, 199 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing Ghandi v.

Police Dep't City of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338, 354 (6th Cir. 1984)). Thus, whether to grant a

motion to compel discovery lies within the district court's discretion. Suntrust Bank, 210

F.R.D. at 199 (quoting Lavardo v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993)).

Livingston County's objection that the Magistrate Judge failed to explain the

relevancy of the subject materials is without merit. "Relevancy for discovery purposes is

extremely broad. The information sought need not be admissible in court in order to be

relevant. Rather, the relevancy burden is met if the party can show that the information

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 704
5

sought 'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.'"

Miller v. Federal Express Corp., 186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Hoxie's claims

span from August 27, 2005 when he was initially screened as a Livingston County Jail

inmate, through March 18, 2006 when he was allegedly assaulted by inmate Backus in a

Jail visitor's booth, and through May 23, 2006 when he was released from the Jail. Hoxie's

discovery requests for Jail Cell Assignment Sheets, fellow inmates' last known addresses,

Mail Jail Logs and Health Care Logs, an inmate list and a list of all inmates on his cellblock,

Hoxie's and Backus' cell assignments, and inmates scheduled for visitors on March 18,

2006, all fall within the pertinent time frame of August 27, 2005 through May 23, 2006. The

information culled from this discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to inter alia potential

witnesses, and evidence of Livingston County's policies, customs, and practices relative

to placing potentially violent inmates at the Jail and delivering medical care to Jail inmates.

Miller, 186 F.R.D. at 383. Likewise, MDOC investigations and accreditations dating back

to 2001 could lead to admissible evidence of relevant Livingston County policies, customs,

or practices, as well as evidence of Livingston County's knowledge or absence of such that

constitutional violations were occurring on a regular basis. Id. Livingston County's

argument that all prior past acts uncovered by the instant discovery would be inadmissible

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404(b) as propensity evidence is conclusionary.

Livingston County's assertion that what other inmates perceived is irrelevant because only

the defendants' states of mind are at issue is equally without merit; inmates could possibly

attest to the frequency of Hoxie's complaints and requests for medical treatment, or the

apparent nature of Hoxie's alleged injuries.

Livingston County further objects that the Magistrate Judge improperly

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 705
6

acknowledged a stipulated order as to four of the Livingston County defendants' personnel

files when, in fact, the stipulated order was entered in another lawsuit. Even without the

stipulated order, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the

personnel files containing records of disciplinary actions were relevant, and that Livingston

County could properly redact any personal information.

The court is not left with a definite and firm conviction that the Magistrate Judge

abused her discretion. Patterson, 225 F.R.D. at 205; Suntrust Bank, 210 F.R.D. at 199.

Accordingly,

Defendants Livingston County's objections are hereby OVERRULED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2010

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

February 3, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10725-GCS-MKM Doc # 68 Filed 02/03/10 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 706