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)

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