IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LUKE WAID, Parent and Next-Friend of SR, a minor; et al., ELNORA CARTHAN, et al., v. DARNELL EARLEY, et al., RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former Governor of Michigan; ANDY DILLON, former Treasurer of Michigan, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, INC., VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC. - Articles

All Content

IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LUKE WAID, Parent and Next-Friend of SR, a minor; et al., ELNORA CARTHAN, et al., v. DARNELL EARLEY, et al., RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former Governor of Michigan; ANDY DILLON, former Treasurer of Michigan, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, INC., VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 2, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON MOTIONS: Richard S. Kuhl, Margaret Bettenhausen, Nathan A. Gambill, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON RESPONSE: Emmy L. Levens, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., Paul Novak, Gregory Stamatopoulos, WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. James M. Campbell, CAMPBELL CONROY & O’NEIL, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, for Veolia Appellees.

Judge(s): MERRITT, MOORE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

KAREN NELSON MOORE. Former State of Michigan Governor Richard Dale Snyder and former State Treasurer Andy Dillon claim that they cannot be deposed as non-party fact witnesses with respect to claims against other defendants in the litigation stemming from the Flint Water Crisis. In their view, they are immune from all discovery until they have exhausted every opportunity for appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Meanwhile, other defendants and certain plaintiffs are pursuing discovery on wholly separate claims and have noticed Snyder and Dillon for non-party fact witness depositions. Snyder and Dillon moved for a protective order in the district court to stop the depositions from going forward. When their request was denied, they appealed the district court’s discovery order to this court and shortly thereafter requested a stay of the depositions until we resolve their appeal from the denial of a protective order. We DENY Snyder’s and Dillon’s request for a stay of non-party depositions pending resolution of their appeal from the district court’s order denying their request for a protective order, and we DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction their appeal from the denial of a protective order.

Attachments: