Kosa et al v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 659 et al
ORDER Regarding Federal Rule 31 Discovery on Third Party and Setting Status Conference, ( Status Conference set for 6/5/2017 02:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland, at the US District Court, Detroit, MI) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LAWRENCE KOSA, et al.,
Case No. 13-11786
INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,
ORDER REGARDING FEDERAL RULE 31 DISCOVERY ON THIRD PARTY
AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
The court held a telephonic status conference attended by counsel on March 28,
2017, to discuss the most efficient procedures for obtaining third party discovery from
General Motors (“GM”) regarding applications for, and the availability of, employment
relating to specific named Plaintiffs. The parties indicated that GM believed that written
questions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31(a)(4) would be more effective than
identifying specific oral deponents because, to the extent that GM possessed
responsive information, it was disseminated throughout the organization and not
necessarily within the personal knowledge of any one potential deponent. During the
conference, the parties agreed that proceeding with written discovery would be
sufficient for now but reserved their rights to request in-person depositions in the future
should they be necessary.
Having discussed procedures for continuing with discovery on these issues, the
court invited the parties to submit agreed language. This order reflects the language
that counsel for Defendants thereafter represented to the court as embodying the
Parties’ mutual recommendation. Plaintiffs’ counsel was copied on that communication
and has not objected.
The parties are to submit additional written discovery to GM via a set of written
questions as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 as a functional
equivalent of Rule 33 Interrogatories. See N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n v. Rowe, 324
F.Supp.2d 231, 237, n.5 (D. Me. 2004) (citing Jay E. Grenig and Jeffrey S. Kinsler,
Handbook of Federal Civil Discovery and Disclosure § 6.2 (2d ed.)). Questions may be
combined between the parties, or submitted separately. Each party may serve a set of
GM may provide a written response under oath to each set of written questions in
lieu of actual depositions under Federal Rule 31(b). Such written responses must be
provided 14 days after each party confirms that there are no additional questions to be
Parties reserve the right to pose follow-up or clarification questions based on
GM's answers; if they choose to do so, the follow-up questions must be served on GM
within seven days of receiving GM's initial answers, and GM will then have seven days
from receipt of the follow-up questions to provide answers.
If there are any unresolved issues, the court may order deposition by oral
examination of General Motors’ representatives to address such unresolved issues
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
The court will also hold a status conference on Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:30
p.m. at the US District Court, 231 W Lafayette, Room 252, Detroit , MI 48226
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 11, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 11, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\13-11786.Kosa.discoveryGM.bss.wpd
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?