Yaldo v. Wayne State University et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING in PART and DENYING in part 58 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FIRAS (JASON) YALDO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-13388
Judge Gershwin Drain
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

WAYNE STATE
UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 58)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 12, 2016 motion to compel
Defendant Wayne State University (“Defendant”) to respond to interrogatories and
requests for production of documents. (DE 58.) Judge Drain referred the motion
to me on October 13, 2016 (DE 59) and the next day I issued a notice setting the
matter for a hearing on November 7, 2016 (DE 60), then issued an amended notice
setting the matter for hearing on November 21, 2016. (DE 61.)
On November 1, 2016, Judge Drain issued a stipulated order giving
Defendant an extension of time to respond to the motion so the parties could have
additional time to attempt to resolve their disputes amicably. (DE 62.) On
November 17, 2016 I issued a stipulated order rescheduling the hearing for

December 9, 2016, in order to again give the parties additional time to attempt to
resolve their disputes. (DE 63.)
Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief on December 2, 2016, which stated that
Plaintiff had agreed to withdraw some aspects of the motion to compel. (DE 66.)
Defendant filed its response on December 7, 2016. (DE 67.) The parties did not
file a joint statement of unresolved issues, as is required by my Practice
Guidelines.
On the date set for hearing, attorney Peter Camps appeared on Plaintiff’s
behalf, and attorney Brett Miller 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, Plaintiff’s October 12, 2016 motion to compel
(DE 58) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
At the beginning of the hearing, the Court addressed two overarching
concerns. First, the fact that Plaintiff propounded forty-seven interrogatories,
significantly more than the twenty-five allotted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
Second, whether Defendant waived all defenses or objections to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests by virtue of not responding timely.
Regarding the excess number of interrogatories, in response to questioning
by the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel stipulated to Defendant being required to respond
to only twenty-five interrogatories, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). By agreement,
2 

Plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 17 was withdrawn and interrogatory no. 30 was
substituted therefore, leaving the operative interrogatories as 1-16, 18-25 and 30.
Accordingly, the motion to compel responses interrogatories 26-47, with the
exception of number 30, is DENIED AS MOOT.
As to Defendant’s tardy responses, upon question from the Court, counsel
agreed that in light of the parties prior agreements, Defendant had responded a
mere one day late to the interrogatories and roughly only one week late to the
requests for production of documents. Counsel agreed that Defendant’s responses
were voluminous, totaling roughly 1,800 pages. When asked about what prejudice
Plaintiff suffered from the slightly tardy responses, Plaintiff only mentioned a
purported delay in beginning depositions; however, depositions did not begin until
November. Thus, given the only slightly tardy nature of the responses, Plaintiff’s
lack of demonstrable prejudice stemming therefrom and the voluminous and
repetitive nature of the discovery requests, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s contention
that Defendant’s belated response served to waive all defenses and objections to
the discovery requests at issue. Therefore, the motion to compel is DENIED to the
extent that it asks the Court to hold otherwise.
Having resolved those two issues, the Court reminded the parties that they
had not complied with the relevant Practice Guidelines by submitting a joint
statement of unresolved issues. The Court thus recessed and directed the parties to
3 

confer anew regarding whether any issues in the motion to compel could be
amicably resolved in light of the Court’s Practice Guidelines and the standards of
Rule 26(b)(1).
After the recess, counsel informed the Court that they had agreed to resolve
most aspects of the motion to compel, and that agreement was placed on the record
by counsel via oral stipulation. Pursuant to the stipulation, only Defendant’s
response to interrogatory no. 20 and request for production no. 31 remained for a
ruling by the Court. All other aspects of the motion to compel are DENIED AS
MOOT. The parties shall abide by the stipulations placed on the record.
Request for Production 31
Request for Production 31 asks Defendant to provide a photo of Plaintiff
posted at security desk(s), potentially with derogatory comments written thereon.
The Court finds this request for production may lead to obtaining information
related to Plaintiff’s claims, particularly his intentional infliction of emotional
distress Elliot-Larsen claims. Moreover, the burden upon Defendant to fulfill this
request is minimal and it is proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, the
motion to require Defendant to respond to Request for Production 31 is
GRANTED. Defendant shall produce the requested photo/photos by the
beginning of Plaintiff’s deposition on December 15, 2015 (provided Defendant
possesses any photo(s) responsive to the request).
4 

Interrogatory 20
Interrogatory no. 20 asks Defendant to provide findings and violations cited
by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education in a March 2015 visit to Wayne
State University. The Court finds Defendant’s objection to be well taken as the
interrogatory is overbroad in that Plaintiff’s claims relate to his dismissal and he
has not brought claims of an institutional bias by Defendant against Iraqi born
Chaldeans. Thus, this portion of the motion to compel is DENIED. However, the
Court directs Defendant’s counsel to examine the report again to ensure that it does
not pertain to dismissal of students for ethnic reasons, and to submit a
supplemental response regarding that examination by the beginning of Plaintiff’s
deposition on December 15, 2016. If, upon review, any portions of the report do
pertain to dismissal of students for ethnicity-based reasons, Defendant shall
provide those portions of the report to Plaintiff by December 15, 2016, after having
made any proper redactions.
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.

5 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2016

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 December 9, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

6