UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC LEE BOUIE, Case No. 25-10132 Plaintiff, Honorable Linda V. Parker Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

AHMED ALZAYADI,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 39), AND ORDERING PARTIES TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff Eric Lee Bouie sues two deputies of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department under

. ECF No. 32-1; ECF No. 43. The Honorable Linda V. Parker referred the matter to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under

(b)(1). ECF No. 8. Bouie proceeded pro se until October 17, 2025, when counsel filed an appearance on his behalf. ECF No. 45. The Court then held a status conference on October 29, 2025. ECF No. 45; ECF No. 46. During the conference, the parties agreed to submit a stipulation and proposed order to amend the scheduling order no later than November 3, 2025. The amended schedule must include a deadline for Bouie to amend his pleadings.

Before counsel appeared for Bouie, defendants moved to compel discovery. ECF No. 39. Bouie responded with substantive answers to the discovery requests, but without waiving his objections. ECF No. 42. His

without-waiving objections were improper. “[A] party cannot cloak its answers in without-waiving objections.” Aprile Horse Transp., Inc. v. Prestige Delivery Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-15-GNS-LLK,

, at *3 (W.D. Ky. July 2, 2015). In other words, “[a] party either objects to

production or produces. If it produces, the objections are generally deemed waived.” Riley v. NewPenn Kilt, LLC, No. 518CV00014TBRHBB,

, at *2 n.1 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2020). And Bouie failed to

indicate whether he withheld documents based on its objections. “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C); see also Siser N. Am., Inc. v. Herika G. Inc.,

, 203 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

(“[D]efendants fail to state whether responsive material was withheld as a result of their objections.”). The Court thus ORDERS Bouie to, by November 10, 2025, serve

defendants with supplemental discovery responses that specify whether he is withholding any discovery based on any objections. Those supplemental responses must be signed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: October 30, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling

remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 30, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager