Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court, 16-12959. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180327g10
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant City of Detroit's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena for documents [Doc. #91]. First, subpoenas are not the appropriate mechanism to seek discovery from a party; the Rules of Civil Procedure exist for that purpose. See Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Mass. 1996). Secondly, on February 23, 2018, I filed a Report and Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint as to the City of Detroit and othe
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant City of Detroit's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena for documents [Doc. #91]. First, subpoenas are not the appropriate mechanism to seek discovery from a party; the Rules of Civil Procedure exist for that purpose. See Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Mass. 1996). Secondly, on February 23, 2018, I filed a Report and Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint as to the City of Detroit and other..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant City of Detroit's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena for documents [Doc. #91].
First, subpoenas are not the appropriate mechanism to seek discovery from a party; the Rules of Civil Procedure exist for that purpose. See Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Mass. 1996). Secondly, on February 23, 2018, I filed a Report and Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint as to the City of Detroit and other Defendants [Doc. #184], so a document request directed at that Defendant, by subpoena or otherwise, is not appropriate at this time.
Accordingly, the motion to quash [Doc. #91] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
