360 Construction Company, Inc. v. atsalis brothers painting co. et al

Filing 62

ORDER GRANTING as Unopposed Plaintiff's 45 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
360 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-12344
JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES

Plaintiff,
v.
ATSALIS BROTHERS PAINTING CO.,
GARRY D. MANOUS,
NICK ATSALAKIS and
ANDREW RICHNER,
Defendants,
/

ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT ATSALIS BROTHERS PAINTING CO
(Doc. Ent. 45)
A.

Introduction
Plaintiff 360 Construction Company, Inc., originally filed this case on May 27, 2011

against defendants Atsalis Brothers Painting Co., Garry D. Manous and Nick Atsalakis. The
causes of action include (I) interference with business contract, (II) interference with business
relationship, (III) defamation per se, (IV) libel, (V) unlawful disparagement and (VI) respondeat
superior. Doc. Ent. 1.
On January 24, 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the same
defendants and added an additional defendant, Andrew Richner. The causes of action remain the
same. Doc. Ent. 38.
B.

The Instant Motion

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s February 7, 2012 motion to compel responses to
plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories and requests to produce to defendant Atsalis Brothers
Painting Co. Doc. Ent. 45.1 According to plaintiff, “Defendant has failed to respond or offer
complete answers to the discovery requests, which necessitated this motion.” Doc. Ent. 45 at 1.
Judge Lawson has referred this motion to me for hearing and determination. Doc. Ent.
47.2
C.

Discussion
“A respondent opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and supporting

documents then available.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1). Furthermore, “[a] response to a
nondispositive motion must be filed within 14 days after service of the motion.” E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(2)(B).
Therefore, in the absence of an order stating otherwise, any response to plaintiff’s
February 7, 2012 motion to compel was due on or about February 24, 2012. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
No order of extension has been entered and, to date, no response has been filed.
D.

Order
Upon consideration, plaintiff’s February 7, 2012 motion to compel responses to

plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories and requests to produce to defendant Atsalis Brothers
1

Attached to this motion are Third Set of Discovery (Doc. Ent. 45-2) and February 2, 2012
correspondence to Defendant’s Counsel (Doc. Ent. 45-3). See also Doc. Ent. 45-1 (Index of
Exhibits).
2

There are three other motions pending before the Court. Judge Lawson conducted a hearing
on defendants’ December 27, 2011 motion for protective order (Doc. Ent. 24) on February 13, 2012
and has since entered an order directing parties to file supplemental briefs (Doc. Ent. 50).
Furthermore, Judge Lawson has referred plaintiff’s January 11, 2012 motions to compel
(Doc. Ent. 28 and 29) to me for hearing and determination, and I am scheduled to hear these motions
on March 27, 2012 (Doc. Ent. 61).
2

Painting Co. (Doc. Ent. 45) is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Accordingly, defendant Atsalis
Brothers Painting Co. SHALL respond to plaintiff’s December 30, 2011 third set of
interrogatories and requests to produce (Doc. Ent. 45-2) within ten (10) days of the date of this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order within which to file objections
for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: March 23, 2012

s/Paul J. Komives
PAUL J. KOMIVES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record by
electronic means and/or U.S. mail on March 23, 2012.

s/Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the Honorable
Paul J. Komives

3