Bouie v. Alzayadi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC LEE BOUIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AHMED ALZAYADI,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-10132
Honorable Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 32-1; ECF No. 43.
The Honorable Linda V. Parker referred the matter to the undersigned for
all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(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
Case 2:25-cv-10132-LVP-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 4

2
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, 2015 WL 4068457,
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,
2020 WL 59838, 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., 325 F.R.D. 200, 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
Case 2:25-cv-10132-LVP-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 4

3
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. 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 2:25-cv-10132-LVP-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 4

4
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
Case 2:25-cv-10132-LVP-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 4