Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit v. Jewish Senior Life of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 16 Motion to Compel AND VACATING 31 Motion Hearing - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF
METROPOLITAN DETROIT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-10672

v.

District Judge Gershwin A. Drain
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

JEWISH SENIOR LIFE OF
METROPOLITAN DETROIT, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery
Requests [Doc. #16]. Defendant claims that Plaintiff has not responded to Requests for
Production of Documents or Interrogatories, and has not provided “any evidence
supporting a computation of damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(iii).” In its response
[Doc. #21], filed on September 22, 2016, Plaintiff states, “This date answers, objections,
and responses are being sent to counsel for defendant.” However, counsel for the parties
have informed the Court that this motion has not been resolved.
The Notice of Hearing filed on January 26, 2017 [Doc. #31] is VACATED. The
motion will be decided on the written pleadings, E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), and for the
reasons discussed below, will be GRANTED.
Defendant’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production were served on July 14,
2016. Plaintiff was required to respond within 30 days. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2) and
34(b)(2)(A). “Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for
good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). “If the time limits set forth in the
-1-

discovery rules are to have any meaning, waiver is a necessary consequence of dilatory
action in most cases. ‘Any other result would...completely frustrate the time limits
contained in the Federal Rules and give a license to litigants to ignore the time limits for
discovery without any adverse consequences.’” Carfagno v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
2001 WL 34059032, *1 (W.D. Mich. 2001), quoting Krewson v. City of Quincy, 120
F.R.D. 6, 7 (D.Mass. 1988). Carfagno also counseled courts to “examine the
circumstances of each case, including the reason for tardy compliance, prejudice to the
opposing party, and the facial propriety of the discovery requests.” Id. at *1.
In this case, the Plaintiff’s cursory response offers no persuasive reason for its
failure to timely respond to the discovery requests, and Plaintiff has not argued the
absence of prejudice to the Defendant. See Carfagno, at *2 (“[Defendant] has not
attempted to explain the circumstances surrounding its tardiness in responding. Rather, in
a somewhat cavalier fashion, it merely asserts that plaintiffs have not been prejudiced.
This is insufficient.”). In addition, I have reviewed the Interrogatories and Document
Requests appended to Defendant’s motion, and there is nothing unorthodox or unusual
about those requests. Rather, they all appear completely focused on issues relevant to the
claims and defenses in this lawsuit. Significantly, the document requests seek only nonprivileged documents.1
Not having provided timely responses, Plaintiff has therefore waived any
objections to Defendant’s discovery requests. See Edgington v. VW Credit, Inc., 2007 WL
1577825, *1 (E.D. Mich. 2007), citing Phillips v. Dallas Carriers Corp., 133 F.R.D. 475,
477 (M.D.N.C. 1990).

1

If Plaintiff claims privilege to any otherwise discoverable document, it must
produce a privilege log.
-2-

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests [Doc. #16] is
GRANTED. Plaintiff will produce responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories and Requests
for Production within seven days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: February 2, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
February 2, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager

-3-