King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) Mitchell & Gross v. Peters, 622 Fed.Appx. 749, 757 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Star Mark, 682 F.3d at 176 and “join[ing] the Second Circuit in declining ‘to read into the rule a requirement that a motion served for purposes of the safe harbor period must include supporting papers such as a memorandum of law and exhibits'”). As Plaintiffs' attorneys correctly point out (see ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5805-06), the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan require a motion to be accompanied by a brief, see E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d) (1)(A), and judges in this District strike motions not complying with this requirement, see, e.g., Williams Huron Gardens 397 Trust v. Waterford Twp., No. 18-12319, 2019 WL 659009, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2019). But this speaks to when a motion is filed. Moreover, the issue here is not whether the City complied with the District's local rules; rather, it is whether the City satisfied Rule 11's safe harbor requirements. The Safe Harbor Motion the City served on Plaintiffs' counsel on December 15, 2020, “describe[s] the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). Specifically, the City asserted violations of subdivisions (b)(1)-(3) of the rule: 1. “Initiat[ing] the instant suit for improper purposes, including harassing the City and frivolously undermining ‘People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.' . . . [U]nderst[anding] that the mere filing of a suit (no matter how frivolous) could, without any evidence, raise doubts in the minds of millions of Americans about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.” (ECF No. 161-3 at Pg ID 6060 (quoting ECF No. 62 at Pg ID 3329-30).) 2. Asserting “causes of action . . . in the Complaints (ECF Nos. 1 and 6), Emergency Motion for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Memorandum in Support Thereof (ECF No. 7), and Emergency Motion to Seal (ECF No. 8) [that] were frivolous and legally deficient under existing law and because Plaintiffs failed to present any non-frivolous arguments to extend, modify, or reverse existing law.” (ECF No. 161-3 at Pg ID 6061.) The City then went on to detail the legal deficiencies as to Plaintiffs' Elections and Electors Clauses, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause claims, and further argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing and their claims were moot and barred by laches. (Id. at Pg ID 6061-63.) 3. Raising “factual contentions . . . in the complaints and motions [which were] false.” (Id. at 6063.) The City wrote further: “The key ‘factual' allegations from the supposed fact witnesses, some of whom attempt to cloak their identities while attacking democracy, have been debunked. The allegations about supposed fraud in the processing and tabulation of absentee ballots by the City at the TCF Center have been rejected by every court which has considered them.” (Id. at Pg ID 6064.) Plaintiffs' attorneys maintain that the City's motion was deficient because it “did not cite a single case or fact supporting [its] arguments” (ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5806) and “fail[ed] to identify any specific factual allegation or witness that lacks evidentiary support” (ECF No. 95 at Pg ID 4119). Plaintiffs' attorneys do not identify any authority requiring case citations in a Rule 11 motion to satisfy the safe harbor requirements.24 Moreover, the failure to identify specific facts or witnesses has no bearing on the adequacy of the motion as to the claimed violations of Rule 11(b)(1) or (2). 17