Hardy v. Whitaker et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHITAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-11270
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY,
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND FOR SANCTIONS
(ECF NO. 154, 155, 157, 158, 161)
A.
In his second amended complaint (SAC), Plaintiff Gregory Hardy,
proceeding pro se, sues law enforcement officials with the Flint Police
Department and the Genessee County Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF
No. 93. 	The Honorable Thomas L. Ludington referred the case to the
undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No.
10. Hardy moves to compel discovery, for a protective order, and for
sanctions. After a hearing on October 15, 2025, the Court denies the
motions.
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 6

2
B.
In his motion to compel, Hardy asked the Court to compel the
Genessee County defendants to produce video surveillance footage from
his time in jail in a reasonably usable format. ECF No. 154. The Court
ordered the Genessee County defendants to “either produce a new copy of
the video surveillance without codes that obscure the images or have an IT
specialist present at the hearing to address Hardy’s complaints about the
quality of the video.” ECF No. 162, PageID.1721-1722. At the hearing,
Hardy agreed that the Genessee County defendants had produced usable
video of the entire period addressed in his complaint. The Court therefore
DENIES AS MOOT Hardy’s motion to compel. ECF No. 154.
C.
Hardy filed a motion for a protective order, a motion for leave to file a
protective order, and a duplicative motion for protective order to forbid
inquiry into his sex-related criminal conviction. ECF No. 155; ECF No. 157;
ECF No. 158. He also moves for leave to file a motion for sanctions based
on defense counsel’s inquiry into that conviction. ECF No. 161. The Court
notes that the parties no longer need to move for leave to file discovery
motions. ECF No. 151, PageID.1502. And the Court denies Hardy’s
motions for a protective order and for sanctions.
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Hardy requests that defense counsel be prohibited from inquiring into,
disclosing, or using his prior sex-related conviction in discovery or trial.
ECF No. 155, PageID.1579. Hardy filed his motions for protective order
and for sanctions after defense counsel asked a doctor deposition
questions about his conviction. 	See id., PageID.1584-1591.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) allows a party to move for a
order to protect him from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden.” The movant bears the burden of showing good cause for a
protective order. 	Nix v. Sword, 11 F. App’x 498, 500 (6th Cir. 2001). “To
show good cause, a movant for a protective order must articulate specific
facts showing ‘clearly defined and serious injury’ resulting from the
discovery sought and cannot rely on mere conclusory statements.” Id.
(cleaned up). Courts enjoy “broad discretion to decide when a protective
order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” 	Seattle
Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984) (cleaned up). In exercising
that discretion, a court must balance the competing interests and hardships
of the parties. 	Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Harshman, 299 F.R.D. 157, 158
(E.D. Ky. 2014).
The parties disagree about whether Hardy’s conviction is admissible
under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. But information “need not be
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 6

4
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Whether Hardy’s conviction is admissible at trial must be addressed in a
motion in limine, not a protective order. 	See Wolpert v. Branch Banking Tr.
& Co., No. 3:19-CV-138-TRM-DCP, 2023 WL 2824900, at *1 (E.D. Tenn.
Mar. 1, 2023) (a protective order governs the flow of discovery); Harwood
v. N. Am. Bancard LLC, No. 18-CV-12567, 2022 WL 2467722, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. July 6, 2022) (a motion in limine addresses the admissibility of
evidence at trial).
So the question now is whether defense counsel should be forbidden
from inquiring into Hardy’s conviction or discussing it with witnesses during
discovery. Hardy’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct
under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a) is a matter of public record.
Hardy v. Smith, No. 1:07-CV-1169, 2008 WL 1780997, at *2 (W.D. Mich.
Apr. 16, 2008) (denying Hardy’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254). And “[d]uring the hearing, the Court emphasized the
breadth of discovery and that filing a lawsuit requires plaintiffs to disclose
private information.” 	Brewer v. Detroit Pub. Sch., No. CV 17-11364, 2020
WL 6390496, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2020), adopted, 2020 WL 5793256
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-2068, 2021 WL 8314815 (6th Cir.
Dec. 13, 2021). Given that the discovery rules ordinarily permit inquiring
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 6

5
into a plaintiff’s private information, the Court sees no ground to prohibit
defense counsel from inquiring into his publicly known conviction,
especially when that conviction may be admissible at trial.
The Court therefore DENIES Hardy’s motions for protective order and
for sanctions. ECF No. 154; ECF No. 155; ECF No. 157; ECF No. 158;
ECF No. 161.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 20, 2025
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. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“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.
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 6

6
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 20, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 178, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 6