Nixon v. Detroit, City of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH NIXON,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:23-cv-11547
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
MOISES JIMENEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
BY CIERA RENEE’ (ECF No. 109)
On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff Kenneth Nixon sued Detroit Police Department
Officers, 	alleging 	constitutional 	violations 	in 	connection 	with 	Defendants’
investigation and prosecution of Nixon for an arson-murder he did not commit. ECF
No. 1. The parties have since engaged in discovery for months. As part of that
process, Defendants issued a subpoena to an anticipated trial witness, Ciera Renee’,1
who rendered mental healthcare treatment to Nixon. ECF No. 109-3. The subpoena
sought “any and all medical records including but not limited to records of Ciera
Renee’, MA, TLLP, including mental health records, counseling records, psychiatric
1 Although the parties identify her as “Ciera Renee’,” she reports her name to be
Ciera Renee’ Hardaway in her October 2025 subpoena response. See ECF No. 109-
6 at PageID.3642. All references in this order to “Ciera Renee’” include “Ciera
Renee’ Hardaway.”
Case 2:23-cv-11547-SKD-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
records 	in 	digital 	format 	if 	possible 	pertaining 	to: 	Kenneth 	Nixon.” 	Id. 	at
PageID.3628. Defendants allege Renee’ did not produce those records, but instead
sent only a “five-page, after-the-fact summary” that was prepared on October 5,
2025. ECF No. 109 at PageID.3610; see also ECF No. 109-6.
Defendants do not say whether Nixon or Renee’ oppose their motion, and
neither Nixon nor Renee’ responded to Defendants’ motion to compel.
Because the subpoenaed records are relevant and because Renee’s initial
response 	to 	Defendants’ 	subpoena 	was 	noncompliant, 	this 	Court 	will 	grant
Defendants’ motion to compel production.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Civil Rule 26 permits a party to:
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount 	in 	controversy, 	the 	parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery, however, may be “limited by court
order,” id., and “it is well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Coleman v. Am. Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th
Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Guy, 978 F.2d 934, 938 (6th Cir. 1992)).
Case 2:23-cv-11547-SKD-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
If a witness fails to comply with a subpoena, Civil Rule 45 provides that the
party seeking evidence may move for a court order compelling that witness to
produce the requested documents. F ED. R. CIV. P. 45.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Relevance
As a threshold mater, the records that Defendants have attempted to obtain
through the subpoena at issue here are relevant. Nixon has alleged that he suffered
psychological 	and 	emotional 	injuries, 	see, 	e.g., 	ECF 	No. 	1 	at 	PageID.37.
Consequently, Nixon’s mental condition is at issue in this case. Moreover, Nixon
listed Renee’ as a potential trial witness in his Civil Rule 26 disclosure. ECF No.
109-2. The requested records speak directly to that condition, so they are relevant to
Nixon’s claims and Defendants’ defenses under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. See
Salser v. Dyncorp Int’l, Inc., No. 12-10960, 2014 WL 7139886, at *2 (“Under
certain circumstances, when a plaintiff places his or her emotional or mental state at
issue, the psychological or psychiatric treating records of that person are relevant.”);
Stewart v. Orion Fed. Credit Union, 285 F.R.D. 400, 401–02 (W.D. Tenn. 2012)
(finding that plaintiff-employee waived privilege as to her mental health records by
placing her mental health at issue in case).
Case 2:23-cv-11547-SKD-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
B. Compliance
Renee’ did not comply with the subpoena. True, she responded with a five-
page summary. ECF No. 109-6. But that summary was prepared after she received
the subpoena, and it was not accompanied by “mental health records, counseling
records, [and] psychiatric records,” ECF No. 109-3, such as contemporaneous notes,
intake forms, or the like. Further, Renee’ has not justified her refusal to produce
these records by, for example, claiming that the subpoenaed records are privileged
or confidential. She has not objected to the subpoena under Rule Civil 45(d)(2) or
moved to quash the subpoena under Civil Rule 45(d)(3). Nor has she declared that
there are no such records.
Thus, because the records Defendants seek from Renee’ are relevant and this
Court finds Renee’ has not complied with Defendants’ subpoena, it will grant
Defendants’ motion. Renee’ will be directed to comply with Defendants’ subpoena
and produce Nixon’s mental health treatment records to Defendant on or before
December 12, 2025.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Compel
Production, ECF No. 109, is GRANTED.
Further, it is ORDERED that Ciera Renee’ is DIRECTED to produce on or
before 	December 	12, 	2025, 	all 	subpoenaed 	records. 	Specifically, 	she 	is
Case 2:23-cv-11547-SKD-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
DIRECTED to produce “any and all medical records including but not limited to
records of Ciera Renee', MA, TLLP, including mental health records, counseling
records, psychiatric records in digital format if possible pertaining to: Kenneth
Nixon.” ECF No. 109-3. at PageID.3628. Failure to comply with this order may
result in sanctions, including a finding of contempt. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(g).
Lastly, Defendants are REMINDED to comply with Local Rule 7.1 before
filing a motion.2
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case.
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: December 5, 2025
2 Local Rule 7.1(a) mandates that “the movant must confer with the other parties ...
in a manner that reasonably explains the basis for the motion and allows for an
interactive process aimed at reaching agreement on the matter.” E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(a). Moreover, if concurrence is not obtained, the motion must state that “there
was a conference between attorneys or unrepresented parties ... in which the movant
explained the nature of the motion or request and its legal basis and requested but
did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a)(2)(A).
Case 2:23-cv-11547-SKD-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 5