Konica Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. v. Applied Imaging Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 207

ORDER on Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 149 , 153 , 157 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 174 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 15-11254
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.
LOWERY CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants,

__________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL
[ECF NOS. 149, 153, 157, 161, 162, 163, 174]
The parties filed various motions to compel that were referred to this
Court for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The parties were ordered to meet and confer with expert advisor Scott
Bailey. [ECF No. 168]. After meeting and conferring, the parties filed
statements of resolved and unresolved issues. [ECF Nos. 195-204]. The
Court held a hearing on November 30, 2017. For the reasons stated on the
record, the Court orders as set forth below.

1. Compilation of Common Customer List
KMBS must provide Bailey with a list of all of its customers at the time
that the individual defendants ceased working for KMBS, and for the three
years prior to the termination of individual defendants’ employment with
KMBS. KMBS must identify the time periods during which it was doing
business with those customers.
AI and the individual defendants must provide a list to Bailey of all
customers that they have done business with after the individual
defendants left their employment with KMBS to the present, and must
identify which of the individual defendants have done business with each
listed customer. AI is primarily responsible for compiling this list, but each
individual defendant must confirm the customers with which he or she has
done business after leaving KMBS and augment AI’s list as necessary.
These lists must be provided to Bailey by December 29, 2017. Bailey
will then submit to each party a list of only those customers who are
included on both KMBS’s and the defendants’ lists. The resulting list will be
referred to as the common customer list below.
2. Defendant Rob Bell’s motion to compel from KMBS [ECF No.
149]
Interrogatory 18: The motion to compel an answer to this
interrogatory is denied because KMBS’s complaint includes a civil
2

conspiracy count and demands joint and several damages from all
defendants, [ECF No. 9, PageID 116, 118], and because KMBS is
still discovering the damage that it believes was caused by each
individual defendant.

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

3. KMBS’s motion to compel from AI [ECF No. 153]
Interrogatory 3: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this
request.
Interrogatory 4: AI agrees and is ordered to identify all yearly
revenue paid to AI by each customer identified on the common
customer list. An order on KMBS’s request for identification of
weekly, monthly and quarterly revenues paid to AI by these
customers is deferred until the common customer list has been
compiled.
RFP 38: AI must produce for inspection and/or imaging all electronic
computing or storage devices—including but not limited to hard
drives, flash drives, and cloud or internet-based storage devices—
that were issued by AI and used by any former employee of KMBS.
3

The definition of “former employee” is one who started working at AI
one year or less after leaving his or her employment with KMBS, from
January 1, 2011, to the present. KMBS must provide AI with a list
“former employees” of which KMBS is aware, but AI must
independently search for “former employees” in order to fulfill its
obligations under this order.

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

4. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Matt Aron [ECF No.
157]

Interrogatory 12: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this
request.
Request for production of documents (RFP) 32: The order
regarding this RFP is deferred until the common customer list is
completed.

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

4

5. KMBS’s motion to compel from Bell [ECF No. 161]
Interrogatory 8: Bell must answer this interrogatory, except that the
date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the present.
Interrogatory 9: Bell must answer this interrogatory, except that the
date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the present.
Interrogatory 12: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this
request.
Interrogatory 13: This interrogatory is too broadly written and must
be redrafted to focus only on communication between Bell and AI that
would be relevant to the claims or defenses.
Interrogatory 14: Bell must identify any and all communications
between him and AI referencing any Relevant KMBS Customer or
potential employment with AI. The “Relevant KMBS Customers” are
identified on Appendix A of Bailey’s meet and confer report.1
RFP 24: Bell must produce the documents requested in this RFP,
except that the date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the
present.

This report was distributed to the Court and the parties. Bell filed the
report with his statement of unresolved issues, but that exhibit was stricken
because it included information that labeled as “Attorneys Eyes Only.”
5

1

RFP 30: Bell must produce the documents requested in this RFP,
except that the date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the
present.
RFP 32: An order on this RFP is deferred pending the compilation of
the common customer list.
RFP 33: This RFP is too broadly written and must be redrafted to
focus only on communication between Bell and AI that would be
relevant to the claims or defenses.
RFP 34: Bell must produce documents, tangible items, and
electronically stored information concerning, relied upon, or referred
to in response to interrogatory 14, as narrowed above.

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

6. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Steve Hurt [ECF No.
162]
All issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

7. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Anna Stewart [ECF
No. 163]
All issues were resolved prior to the hearing.
6

8. AI’s motion to compel from KMBS [ECF No. 174]
Interrogatory 5: This interrogatory is too broadly written, and its
motion to compel an answer is denied.
RFP 6: This RFP was withdrawn at the hearing in light of the ruling
on interrogatory 5.
RFP 8: This RFP was withdrawn at the hearing in light of the ruling
on interrogatory 5.

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing.

***
Except for the lists ordered in paragraph 1, any supplementation of
discovery responses ordered above must completed by January 29, 2018.
The parties are warned that the filing of objections to a magistrate
judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion does not stay the parties’
obligations under the order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2 (“When an objection is
filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.”).
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: December 1, 2017
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of 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).

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 December 1, 2017.

s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

8