united states district court eastern …media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/ferrand...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JENNIFER, BLOOD,

Plaintiff, Case No: 1:11-cv-11802 BCHon. Thomas L. Ludington

CITY OF BAY CITY, aMichigan municipal entity,

Defendant._____________________________________/SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C.By: Mary A. Mahoney (P41568)Attorney for Plaintiff37887 W. Twelve Mile Road., Suite AFarmington Hills, MI 48331(248) [email protected]

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.By: TIMOTHY S. FERRAND (P39583)Attorneys for Defendant43409 SchoenherrSterling Heights, MI 48313(586) [email protected]_________________________________________________/

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIESAND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1:11-cv-11802-TLL-CEB Doc # 8 Filed 01/04/12 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 37

1

Defendant, City of Bay City, by and through its attorneys, Cummings, McClorey,

Davis & Acho, P.L.C., pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34 and 37, moves

this Court for entry of an Order compelling answers to interrogatories and request for

production of documents.

This Motion is supported by an accompanying brief.

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.

By: s/Timothy S. Ferrand Attorneys for Defendants City of Eastpointe andDerek McLaughlin43409 Schoenherr RoadSterling Heights, Michigan 48313Phone: (586) [email protected] 39583

DATED: January 4, 2012


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JENNIFER, BLOOD,

Plaintiff, Case No: 1:11-cv-11802 BCHon. Thomas L. Ludington

CITY OF BAY CITY, aMichigan municipal entity,

Defendant._____________________________________/SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C.By: Mary A. Mahoney (P41568)Attorney for Plaintiff37887 W. Twelve Mile Road., Suite AFarmington Hills, MI 48331(248) [email protected]

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.By: TIMOTHY S. FERRAND (P39583)Attorneys for Defendant43409 SchoenherrSterling Heights, MI 48313(586) [email protected]_________________________________________________/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIESAND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


1

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff Jennifer Blood is a former police officer with the Bay City Police Department.

She was discharged from that position August 3, 2010 as a result of progressive

disciplinary action which was taken based on multiple instances of misconduct over an

eight month period. Disciplines were issued during that time frame against the Plaintiff

based on the following conduct:

• On October 7, 2009, Ms. Blood left her three-year-old son unattended in a

vehicle in the police department parking lot, while she was on duty, for a

period greater than forty minutes.

• On November 10, 2009, Ms. Blood was disciplined for having violated a

policy which required that all City employees inform their supervisor if they

are involved in an intimate, personal relationship with another City employee.

• On March 19, 2010, Ms. Blood was disciplined for having left a reported

crime scene which she was called to without conferring with the other officer

on the scene and without getting supervisory approval to leave the scene.

• On June 24, 2010, Ms. Blood was involved in a physical altercation at a local

Bay City bar. Ms. Blood did not, initially, inform the department about this

incident, rather the police became aware of the incident when other

individuals reported it and accused her of having initiated the altercation.

• On July 11, 2010, Ms. Blood was in a car accident while operating a vehicle

under the influence of alcohol. She consumed more alcohol after the accident

occurred and then left the scene of the accident.

• On July 16, 2010, while on paid suspension, Plaintiff left her home without


2

directly informing her supervisor of her whereabouts, in violation of a direct

order from Bay City Police Chief Michael Cecchini.

• Finally, Ms. Blood was terminated on August 3, 2010 after she failed to report

to work on August 2, 2010 in violation of a direct order.

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a one count Complaint alleging gender discrimination

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliott Larson Civil Rights

Act [Doc 1].

Defendant served Ms. Blood with First Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and

Request to Produce on November 1, 2011 (Exhibit A). On November 29, 2011 the parties

agreed to a mutual extension of 14 days regarding all outstanding discovery. (Exhibit B)

Plaintiff served answers to Defendant’s First Request for Admissions on December 14,

2011 (Exhibit C). Plaintiff’s response to the Request for Admissions was not signed by

Plaintiff. The accompanying Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

were unanswered. On December 23, 2011 Defendant’s counsel sent correspondence to

Plaintiff’s counsel asking if a signed answer to Defendant’s Request for Admissions, as well

as answers to the corresponding Interrogatories and Requests for Production, were

forthcoming. (Exhibit D) Defendant has received no response to this correspondence and

has not received the requested discovery answers.

Legal Argument

I. Plaintiff has Failed to Respond to Interrogatories and Request forProduction of Documents.

FRCP 33(b)(2) states that a responding party must serve its answers and any

objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. FRCP 34(b)(2) states


3

that a party to whom a request to produce is directed must respond in writing within 30

days after being served.

Each request for admission served on Plaintiff in the present matter is followed by

an interrogatory and request for production of documents. (Exhibit A) The interrogatory

seeks a factual support for each denial. The names of witnesses and the identity and

production of documents supportive of each denial. The parties agreed to a 14 day

extension for this discovery, making Plaintiff’s answers due on December 15, 2011.

(Exhibit B) To the present date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Therefore, Defendant seeks an

order compelling a response to each.

Relief requested:

For each of the reasons set forth above, the Defendants, respectfully request this

Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to respond fully and completely to each

interrogatory and request for production of documents forthwith.

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.

By: s/Timothy S. Ferrand Attorneys for Defendants (P 39583)43409 Schoenherr RoadSterling Heights, Michigan 48313Phone: (586) 731-5000

DATED: January 4, 2012 [email protected]


4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 4, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoingpaper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will sendnotification of such filing to attorneys of record and I hereby certify that Ihave mailed the following non-ECF participants: [none]

/s/ Timothy S. Ferrand Attorneys for Defendants43409 SchoenherrSterling Heights, MI 48313Phone: (586) 731-5000Primary E-mail: [email protected]


Index of Exhibits

A. Defendant’s First Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request toProduce dated November 1, 2011

B. Agreement to mutual 14 day extension regarding outstanding discovery on November 29, 2011

C. Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendants’s First Request for Admissions dated December 14, 2011

D. Correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel dated December 23, 2011

1:11-cv-11802-TLL-CEB Doc # 8-1 Filed 01/04/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 44

EXHIBIT A


EXHIBIT B


EXHIBIT C


EXHIBIT D
