Sabol-Krutz v. Quad Electronics,Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Compel; granting 36 Motion for Leave to File; granting 37 Motion to Amend/Correct--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STACEY SABOL-KRUTZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-13328 Judge Nancy Edmunds Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti QUAD ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant. _________________________/ ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 34) AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM (DE 36) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER (DE 37) Currently before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff’s December 15, 2016 motion to compel (DE 34); 2) Defendant’s December 16, 2016 motion for leave to file counterclaim (DE 36); and 3) Defendant’s December 16, 2016 motion for leave to amend/correct its answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (DE 37.) Judge Edmunds referred all three motions to me for hearing and determination. (DE 35, 41.)1 On December 19, 2016, I set a hearing on the motion to compel for January 20, 2017 (DE 38); on January 5, 2017, I issued a notice that the motions for leave to file counterclaim and for leave to amend answer would be heard at the same                                                              1  Judge Edmunds also originally referred Plaintiff’s motion for a fourth extension of time (DE 40) to me (DE 41), but a ruling on that motion has already been issued. (DE 50.) time as the motion to compel. (DE 46.) All motions are fully briefed. (DE 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49.) On the date set for hearing, attorney Mark Dickow appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf, and attorneys Heidi Sharp and Peter Camps appeared on behalf of Defendant. Consistent with my findings and reasoning stated on the record, which are hereby incorporated by this order as though restated herein, it is ORDERED as follows. A. Defendant’s Motions for Leave to File Counterclaim (DE 36) and for Leave to Amend Answer (DE 37) As discussed during the hearing, the Court concludes that the motion for leave to file counterclaim (DE 36) and the motion for leave to amend answer (DE 37) satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(e) and/or 15(a). The Court finds that the proposed pleadings are not futile, nor is there undue delay, bad faith or evidence of a dilatory motive by Defendant or a failure to cure any deficiencies by previous amendments. Any undue prejudice to Plaintiff stemming from granting the motions, especially the motion for leave to file counterclaim, is cured by the Court simultaneously extending the discovery deadline, as will be discussed later herein. Both the motion for leave to file counterclaim (DE 36) and motion for leave to file amended answer (DE 37) are GRANTED. 2    B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (DE 34) Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew the request to compel Defendant to provide additional answers to Interrogatories 11 and 13. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide additional/supplemental answers to certain Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:  Request 4 is denied without prejudice, subject to Plaintiff submitting a more specific request;  Request 7 is granted to the extent that the Defendant shall, by February 3, 2017, produce profit and profit margin information with respect to the contracts for which Plaintiff was entitled to have commissions on the “Accounts in Question,” as defined in the discovery requests at issue, subject to designation under the existing protective order (DE 20) or a newly agreed upon protective order. That information may be provided to an accountant retained by Plaintiff as a witness or consultant, subject to that accountant agreeing in writing to be bound by the protective order;  Request 8 is denied and the Defendant’s objections are sustained;  Request 9 is denied and the Defendant’s objections are sustained;  Request 11 is denied and the Defendant’s objections are sustained; 3     Request 12 is denied and the Defendant’s objections are sustained, but the Court encourages the parties to confer regarding new, mutually agreeable search terms;  Request 13 is denied and the Defendant’s objections are sustained;  Request 14 is granted in part and denied in part such that the Defendant shall, by February 3, 2017, produce a customer list from 2008 to 2015, subject to the protective order. The Court declines to award expenses or fees to either party as neither party obtained complete relief and each presented good faith arguments which necessitated rulings by the Court, and other circumstances of record make an award of expenses or fees unjust. C. Scheduling Order In light of the foregoing rulings, the Court extends the remaining deadlines as follows.  Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff supplemental initial disclosures respecting the new counterclaim by February 7, 2017. If Plaintiff submits written discovery requests to Defendant regarding matters pertaining to the newly-filed counterclaim, Defendant shall answer those requests within fourteen days. 4     All discovery shall be completed by April 3, 2017. Witness lists shall also be provided by April 3, 2017.  Dispositive motions shall be filed by May 1, 2017.  The dates for the final pretrial conference and trial, as well as the deadline for filing a final pretrial order will be reset, if necessary, by Judge Edmunds. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2017 s/ Anthony P. Patti Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on January 23, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable Anthony P. Patti 5   

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?