DeLorean v. Coach, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER on Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Compel and Other Discovery Matters. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ELIZABETH DELOREAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-13704
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COACH, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF #33)
AND OTHER DISCOVERY MATTERS
On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff Elizabeth Delorean (“Plaintiff) filed a motion to
compel Defendant Coach, Inc. (“Defendant”) to produce certain documents (the
“Motion”). (See ECF #33). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on August 8,
2016. For the reasons explained on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant shall produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request to
Produce #36 as modified by Paragraph 12 of the Motion.
2. Defendant shall not limit its response to e-mails and attachments to e-mails.
3. Defendant may limit its production to the time-frame identified on the
record at the hearing on the Motion if Defendant, through counsel, certifies
(as part of an amended response to Request to Produce #36) that Defendant
has

1

(a) undertaken a reasonable investigation to identify those employees
who may have information with respect to whether, outside of the timeframe identified on the record, Defendant considered closing the store at
which Plaintiff worked;
(b) asked those employees whether Defendant undertook such
consideration outside of the time-frame identified on the record; and
(c) determined, based on the responses from those employees, that there
is no reasonable basis on which to believe that Defendant undertook
such consideration outside of the time-frame identified on the record.
In addition, during the August 8, 2016, hearing, the Court also considered an
oral request by Defendant to impose certain conditions and/or limitations on the
deposition of witness Jennifer Becigneul (“Ms. Becigneul”). With respect to that
request, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The parties shall set aside two days to take Ms. Becigneul’s deposition. The
first day shall be August 25, 2016. Counsel shall mutually agree on a
second day for Ms. Becigneul’s deposition to take place no later than
September 9, 2016.
2. The deposition of Ms. Becigneul shall commence on the morning of August
25, 2016, at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel for both parties and
the witness shall leave open that entire day for the completion of the
deposition. At least fifty-percent of Ms. Becigneul’s deposition shall be

2

completed on August 25. If Ms. Becigneul concludes, after fifty-percent of
her deposition has been completed, that the stress of continuing with the
deposition would interfere with her efforts to conceive a child, Defendant’s
counsel may contact Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen (at 313-234-5115) on
Ms. Becigneul’s behalf to seek permission to adjourn the second half of her
deposition to the mutually-agreed upon second date. If Magistrate Judge
Whalen allows such an adjournment, then Ms. Becigneul’s deposition shall
be completed on the second date. If Magistrate Judge Whalen denies such
an adjournment, the parties and Ms.

Becigneul shall complete the

deposition on August 25, 2016. (Nothing in this Order shall be construed as
extending the total time allotted for Ms. Becigneul’s deposition beyond that
allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff desires
additional time, she shall make a separate request for such time.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 9, 2016

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 9, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4