UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DAVID DANIEL, Case No. 24-11218

Plaintiff, Robert J. White v. United States District Judge

TERI FIGHTER-DANIEL, et al., Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 61)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel’s First Motion to Compel the Defendants to Provide All Requested Discovery Documents, Emails and Video’s for Trial (ECF No. 61). The Court need not address the merits of this motion because it suffers from several fatal procedural defects. As an initial matter, this Court’s Local Rules require one party to seek the other’s concurrence prior to filing a motion, so that the parties can participate in “an interactive process aimed at reaching agreement . . . without court involvement.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(1). If concurrence is not obtained, the motion must state why in accordance with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2)(A)–(D). Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate whether he sought Defendants’ concurrence on his motion, nor does it explain why concurrence was not sought. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and can be denied on that ground alone. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(3).

Likewise, Plaintiff did not adhere to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). This Rule similarly requires the party moving to compel discovery to include with their motion a certification that he “in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with the person or party to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). This Rule is expressly incorporated into this Court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(1); see also E.D. Mich. LR 37.1. Again, Plaintiff included no indication whether he

conferred with Defendants prior to filing this motion. His failure to do so warrants the denial of his motion. Lastly, Plaintiff did not include verbatim copies of the discovery requests

that are subject of his motion. This is yet another violation of Local Rules that warrants denial. See E.D. Mich. LR 37.2 (“Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, shall include, in the motion itself or in an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer,

response, and objection which is the subject of the motion or a copy of the actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion); Moore v. Maly, Case No. 4:18-cv-13845,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2021) (collecting cases where discovery motions have been denied for failure to comport with Local Rule 37.2).

For these reasons, Plaintiff Daniel’s First Motion to Compel the Defendants to Provide All Requested Discovery Documents, Emails and Video’s for Trial (ECF No. 61) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as

error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to

a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.

Date: November 24, 2025 s/Curtis Ivy, Jr. Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 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 or by First Class U.S. mail on November 24, 2025.

s/Sara Krause Case Manager (810) 341-7850