Wahlstrom v. Monk et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 17 Motion to Compel; AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBORAH WAHLSTROM,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-14113

v.

District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

JASON MONK, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce [Doc. #17], which has
been referred for hearing and determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff served the disputed discovery request on Defendants on April 20, 2016,
and states that as of the date of filing this motion, she has not received a response.
Defendants have not filed a response to this motion, and Plaintiff has not informed the
Court that the discovery dispute has been resolved. I therefore consider this motion
unopposed.
Responses to interrogatories and document requests are due 30 days after service.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). “As a general rule, failure to object to discovery
requests within the thirty days provided by Rules 33 and 34 ‘constitutes a waiver of any
objections.’” Carfagno v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 2001 WL 34059032, *1 (W.D.
Mich. 2001)(quoting Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468,
1473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Jagielo v. Van Dyke Public Schools, 2010 WL 259053, *2
(E.D. Mich. 2010)(“Plaintiff has waived any claim of privilege as the result of her failure
-1-

to timely assert a privilege-based objection to the Defendants’ document request”);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4)(“Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the
court, for good cause, excuses the failure”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. #17] is GRANTED. Defendants
will respond substantively (objections having been waived) to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests to Produce within seven days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees and costs related to bringing this motion.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A) provides:
“If the motion [to compel discovery] is granted–or if the disclosure or
requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed–the court must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct,
or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the
motion, including attorney’s fees.”
Of course, Defendants had the opportunity to be heard on the issue of attorney’s
fees, but failed to file a response to the Plaintiff’s motion that requested the same. I
consider $500.00 to represent a reasonable attorney’s fee for preparing and filing this
motion, which I have decided without oral hearing. This sanction is assessed against all
Defendants, jointly and severally, and will be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days of
the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: June 30, 2016

-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 30, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager

-3-