Vitamin Health, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 11 : (Response due by 10/14/2015, Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2015 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford). Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VITAMIN HEALTH, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-10071
Honorable Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
__________________________________/
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [R. 11] AND
SETTING MOTION HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2015 AT 10:00 A.M.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Vitamin Health, Inc.’s motion to compel
[R. 11], which the Honorable Sean F. Cox referred for hearing and
determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). [R. 12]. Pursuant to
the local court rules, Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company has
until October 14, 2015 to file its response. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The Court
will hold a hearing on November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. regarding the
motion.
Prior to the hearing, the parties must meet and confer as required
by E.D. Mich. LR 37.1. This meeting must be in person, and the parties
must make a good faith effort to narrow the areas of disagreement. LR
37.1. Following the meeting, and by November 9, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel

must file a confirmation that the meeting has taken place and a list of the
requests it still believes Defendant has insufficiently answered. Defendant
must file a response by November 11, 2015 that specifies any documents
that it has provided in an effort to satisfy its discovery obligations and the
bases for any continuing objections.
As the parties seek to narrow the areas of disagreement, they should
keep in mind the following principles of law. A party objecting to a request
for production of documents as overly broad or burdensome must submit
affidavits or other evidence to substantiate its objections. In re Heparin
Products Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 399, 410-11 (N.D. Ohio 2011). On the
other hand, “Where a party explains the difficulties that compliance would
create, the requesting party must be heedful, and not simply knee-jerk
dismissive of those explanations.” Id. Although the scope of discovery of
non-privileged matter is broad, a plaintiff may not “go fishing”; district courts
have discretion to limit the scope of discovery when the requests are overly
broad and unduly burdensome. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538
F.3d 448, 457 (6th Cir. 2008). “Likewise, a party who reasonably perceives
a discovery request from the opposing party as too broad or too vague to
comply with may object to the request and seek clarification from the
opposing party and the district court.” Id.
2

Of further note, to the extent that Defendant is claiming privilege, it
must provide a privilege log as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).
It may also seek a protective order. See E.D. Mich. LR 26.4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 2, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention 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). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 2, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3