Judge James Redford took under advisement a state motion for summary disposition in Cage v. Michigan State Police on questions of ownership and exclusive use of a vehicle involved in the death of Samuel Sterling.

The motion, argued by Assistant Attorney General Mary Woodall, seeks dismissal under the Governmental Tort Liability Act on the ground that "the state is not an owner of the vehicle," and therefore the motor-vehicle exception to immunity does not apply. Woodall told the court the record shows the vehicle "was only to be used for marshal service operations," citing Deputy U.S. Marshal Ortiz's testimony and arguing plaintiffs had not submitted evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Plaintiff counsel Christopher Desmond said the complaint (paragraphs 7 and 44) adequately alleges state ownership and that discovery has not yet produced testimony and documentary evidence necessary to resolve competing accounts. Desmond cited Basgal v. Kovich and Wright v. Wayne County to argue a vehicle may have multiple owners under Michigan law and that title alone may not resolve ownership questions under MCL 257.37 and MCL 691.1405. "We need to proceed forward with discovery on this issue of ownership," he told the court.

Defense counsel replied that the vehicle was never purchased by or titled to the Michigan State Police and noted it is not insured by the state; she said some federally owned vehicles are recorded through the General Services Administration and a certificate of origin rather than a state title. Defense counsel also argued that Sergeant Avery's earlier statement about ownership was corrected and lacks foundation as substantive evidence.

Judge Redford repeatedly pressed both sides on whether there is admissible, record evidence now before the court that would create a genuine issue of material fact as to ownership or exclusive use. He said deposition testimony and other discovery could supply the factual record, but that at this hearing the court must decide based on what is in the record now.

The judge acknowledged the seriousness of the underlying facts and apologized for the delay in resolving the motion. He said the previously scheduled two‑week trial for Dec. 8–19 was settled on the record and that he would issue an opinion on the motion "no later [than] December 15." The court recessed at 9:37 a.m.

Next steps: Judge Redford will issue a written opinion on the immunity motion by Dec. 15; whether discovery or trial will proceed depends on that ruling.