King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) Because ascertaining whether Plaintiffs' counsel committed any Rule 11(b) (2) or (3) infraction does not turn on the veracity of the affiants and the Court obtained the information it needed during the hearing and via the sanctions briefing, an evidentiary hearing is of no use.48 48 Plaintiffs' attorneys complain that the Court focused on only a limited number of affidavits at the July 12 motion hearing, when more were laced throughout their 960-page Amended Complaint. (ECF 157 at Pg ID 5450-51.) However, as the Court noted at the motion hearing, the affidavits focused on were often the only evidence cited to support key factual assertions in Plaintiffs' pleadings. (Id. at Pg ID 5358, 5410, 5420, 5428, 5435, 5448, 5452.) And, as discussed below, all of the affidavits the Court references in this Opinion & Order's Rule 11(b)(3) analysis were in fact the only pieces of evidence offered to support the relevant factual allegation. a) Counsel's failure to present any evidentiary support for factual assertions Plaintiffs' counsel failed to present any evidence to support their allegation of “illegal double voting.” (See ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 903 ¶ 93.) To support this factual assertion, Plaintiffs pointed to a single piece of “evidence”: the affidavit of Jessy Jacob (“Jacob Affidavit”).49 That affidavit states in part: “I observed a large number of people who came to the satellite location to vote in-person, but they had already applied for an absentee ballot.”50 (ECF No. 6-4 at PDF Pg 37 (emphasis added).)51 Of course, applying for an absentee ballot is not evidence that someone voted via an absentee ballot, and when the Court highlighted this lack of evidence as to “double voting” during the hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel responded: “I think there's inferences that can be drawn, and it should not shock this Court that somebody could show up, after having asked for an absentee ballot ... and then show up and vote again.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5454-55 (emphasis added).) 49 (ECF No. 6 at Pg. ID 942 ¶ 190(f) (citing IIC); see IIC - “Additional Violations of Michigan Election Code That Caused Ineligible, Illegal or Duplicate Ballots to Be Counted, ” Subsection 1 - “Illegal Double Voting, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 903 ¶ 93 (referencing Jacob Aff., ECF No. 6-4 at PDF Pg 36-38).) 50 Jacob does claim that people came to vote in person at the satellite location where she worked who had already applied for an absentee ballot, and that those individuals voted without returning the mailed absentee ballot or signing an affidavit that the ballot had been lost. (ECF No. 6-4 at PDF Pg 37 ¶ 10.) Michigan law makes it a felony to vote both in person and absentee. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.769(4). Of course, Jacob does not state that these individuals voted in person and absentee. As such, her affidavit in fact does not plausibly support “illegal double voting.” (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 903.) 51 Some of the documents filed by the parties contain illegible docket headers. In such instances, the Court references the “PDF” page numbers instead of the “Page IDs.” It does not shock the Court that a Michigan resident can request an absentee ballot and thereafter decide to vote in person. Indeed, Michigan law says that voters can. Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.769(1) (“An absent voter may vote in person within his or her precinct at an election, notwithstanding that he or she applies for an absent voter ballot and the ballot is mailed or otherwise delivered to the absent voter by the clerk” if, “[b]efore voting in person, ” “the absent voter [] return[s] the absent voter ballot.”). But the Court is concerned that Plaintiffs' attorneys believe that a Michigan resident's choice to do so serves as circumstantial evidence that the Michigan resident “double voted.” It does not. Inferences must be reasonable and come from facts proven, not speculation or conjecture. United States v. Catching, 786 Fed.Appx. 535, 539 (6th 29