Michigan Federal Court Has Granted Motion to Compel Law Enforcement Officers to Produce Documents

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has granted in part a motion to compel the defendants, law enforcement officers and the county, to produce documents. Former pretrial detained (“detainees”) Curen Essex, Alicia Bulko, Elizabeth Zubor and Susan Cook filed their motion to compel defendants to answer document requests, such as requests on fellow cellmates and jail administrative policies. The district court ordered the defendants to answer some of these requests on December 2, 2011.

The plaintiffs filed suit in the district court against Robert Bezotte, Tom Cremonte, and Randy Boos –guards and law enforcement officials at the Livingston County Jail (LCJ) and the Livingston County Sheriff’s Department (LCSD) – and Livingston County on March 24, 2009, for events that had occurred while the plaintiffs were incarcerated at the LCJ. Another former detainee at the LCJ, Susan Terrell, also filed a suit against the same defendants for related events. The district court consolidated their cases in August 12, 2010.

The plaintiffs filed a motion on June 21, 2011 to compel the defendants to respond to document requests that the plaintiffs had filed on February 4, 2010 and October 20, 2010. Among the plaintiffs’ requests were (1) documents that revealed policies and procedures of the LCSD that governed the LCJ, the specific units where plaintiffs were housed, the unit in charge of detainee transport, and law enforcement training, (2) documents that reflected the names and birth dates of the detainees at the LCJ sharing the same cells as the plaintiffs for the duration of the plaintiffs’ incarceration (3) complaints against Boos on or after January 2007, and (4) LCJ visitor logs of those who had visited the plaintiffs.

The defendants responded on July 19, 2011, agreeing to respond to all of the plaintiffs’ document requests except where the defendants had objected. The defendants specifically objected to LCSD policies and procedures as much as they did not apply to detainee transport, having no objection to the ones that did. The defendants also specifically objected to producing documentation on the plaintiffs’ cellmates as that information was not discoverable, would violate those detainees’ privacy rights and was protected by federal and state law.

During a September 13, 2011 hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel represented that defendants had produced transportation logs for Boos. Plaintiffs’ counsel additionally raised the dispute between the parties over the documentation relating to the plaintiffs’ cellmates. Both parties subsequently filed a proposed order. On September 28, 2011, prior to ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the district court granted an earlier motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in favor of defendant Cremonte.

In the district court’s granting in part of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the district court ordered defendants Livingston, Bezotte and Cremonte to answer the document request for the plaintiffs’ cellmates’ information and to supplement their answer to the requests for visitor logs with access to information regarding those who had visited the plaintiffs at the LCJ. The court also ordered the defendants to produce complaints filed against Boos, subject to redaction. Defendants were represented by attorneys Edward E. Salah and Dennis L. Brewer. See: Essex v. Livingston County, U.S.D.C. (E.D. Mich.), Case no. 2:09-cv-11095-AJT-PJK.

Related legal case