Daneshvar v. Kipke et al

Filing 92

ORDER Deeming RESOLVED in part and GRANTING in part Defendants' 77 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUGENE D. DANESHVAR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-13096
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

DARYL R. KIPKE and
NEURONEXUS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 77)
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ September 24, 2015 motion to
compel. (DE 77.) Judge Murphy has referred this motion to me for hearing and
determination. (DE 78.)
Following the October 1, 2015 telephonic status conference with counsel for
the parties, I entered a briefing schedule and notice of hearing. (DE 83.) Plaintiff
filed a response, and Defendants filed a reply. (DEs 85, 86.) On October 14,
2015, the parties filed a joint list of unresolved issues. (DE 89.)
On the date set for hearing, attorney Casey Lee Griffith (TX) appeared on
Plaintiff’s behalf, and attorney James R. Muldoon (NY) appeared on behalf of
Defendants. Consistent with my findings and reasoning stated on the record,

which are hereby incorporated by this referee as though stated herein, Defendants’
September 24, 2015 motion to compel (DE 77), as narrowed by the October 14,
2015 list of unresolved issues (DE 89), is DEEMED RESOLVED IN PART and
GRANTED IN PART as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Admissions (RFAs):
On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff served first amended objections
and responses which deny at least 148 of the 200 RFAs. (DE
85-1, DE 86-3.) Plaintiff will not be compelled to further
amend the response to address the substance of the requests.
However, if Plaintiff so chooses, he may supplement his RFA
answers no later than October 29, 2015.

2.

Whether Daneshvar should appear for further deposition as
an expert witness: Daneshvar shall appear for additional
deposition. Defendants may redepose Plaintiff on those RFAs
which he has denied or failed to unequivocally admit, and will
be permitted seven (7) hours in which to do so.1 Having seen
excerpts of the transcript of Plaintiff’s September 14, 2015
video deposition (DE 86-7), Plaintiff is cautioned that he should
be prepared for such continued deposition and to frankly and
thoroughly answer questions regarding each of his RFA
responses on which Defendants have been given leave to redepose him. Should the parties reach an impasse during the
deposition, they have leave to call me for assistance.

Furthermore, Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendants for 7 hours of defense counsel’s
time at an hourly rate of $395.00. This compensation is not a penalty for
Plaintiff’s denials of a vast majority of the RFAs. Rather, it is partial
compensation for Defendants’ attorney fees associated with the prosecution of this

1

is in addition to any deposition time which may be permitted by Judge
Murphy if he accepts my October 14, 2015 report and recommendation (DE 88)
regarding Defendants’ motion for sanctions (DE 49).  

 This

2

motion and with having to yet again re-depose Plaintiff, which was necessitated by
Plaintiff’s delay in providing RFA answers which comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
Had these answers been provided prior to Plaintiff’s previous depositions, the
continuation of Plaintiff’s deposition may not have been necessary. This amount
shall be paid to defense counsel prior to the beginning of Daneshvar’s continued
deposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015

s/ Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing documents was sent to parties of
record on October 16, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3