JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget et al

Filing 737

ORDER DENYING WINGET'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING CHASE'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER 733 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

Case No. 08-13845

v.
HON. AVERN COHN
LARRY J. WINGET and the
LARRY J. WINGET LIVING TRUST,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WINGET’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
GRANTING CHASE’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER
(Doc. 733)
I.
On July 5, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Chase’s motion to compel
responses to its second set of document requests. (Doc. 732).
Before the Court is Winget’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 733). For the
reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
In the motion to compel, Chase sought information to enable Chase to ascertain
the nature and whereabouts of the property held in Trust. Chase asked Winget for the
following:
1.

Any and all documents related to the income, expenses, assets, liabilities,
profits, losses, inventory, cash flows, property holdings, or any other
document evidencing the value of the following...

Chase goes on to list twenty-seven [1(a) through 1(aa)] entities believed to be
once owned by Winget and or the Winget Trust.

2.

Any and all documents related to the income, expenses, assets, liabilities,
profits, losses, inventory, cash flows, property holdings, or any other
document evidencing the value of any and all of the subsidiaries of the
entities identified in the Request 1(a) through 1(aa).

3.

Any and all documents and/or communications related to the revocation of
the Larry J. Winget Trust.
III.

E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration, providing in relevant
part:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by implication.
The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
IV.
Winget has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration. Winget seeks
reconsideration of one of its arguments against disclosure - relating to the application of
the Michigan Limited Liability Act (Act). Winget appears to contend that the Court was
misled by Chase’s selected quotation from the Act. Winget’s position lacks merit. The
full text of the relevant section of the Act is in the record and the Court was in no way
misled by the use of ellipses in a quotation. Moreover, as the Court explained in
rejecting Winget’s argument, the Act applies to satisfaction of a judgment against a
member of an LLC out of the member’s LLC interest. Here, Chase has a judgment
against the Winget Trust. The Winget Trust is no longer a member of the LLCs in
question as the Winget Trust was revoked and all of its assets were transferred to
2

Winget. Chase is seeking discovery about the property formerly in the Winget Trust,
including the LLCs. The Act simply does not apply. As Chase points out in its response
to Winget’s motion for reconsideration, accepting Winget’s argument would result in an
LLC being immune from civil discovery, a proposition that has no legal support.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 2, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

3