State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elite Health Centers Inc. et al

Filing 555

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiff's 477 Motion for Sanctions--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-13040
District Judge Avern Cohn
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
ELITE HEALTH CENTERS, INC.,
ELITE CHIROPRACTIC, P.C.,
ELITE REHABILITATION, INC.,
MIDWEST MEDICAL
ASSOCIATES, INC., PURE
REHABILITATION, INC., DEREK
L. BITTNER, D.C., P.C., MARK A.
RADOM, DEREK LAWRENCE
BITTNER, D.C., RYAN MATTHEW
LUKOWSKI, D.C., MICHAEL P.
DRAPLIN, D.C., NOEL H. UPFALL,
D.O., MARK J. JUSKA, M.D.,
SUPERIOR DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
CHINTAN DESAI, M.D., MICHAEL
J. PALEY, M.D., DEARBORN
CENTER FOR PHYSICAL
THERAPY, L.L.C., MICHIGAN
CENTER FOR PHYSICAL
THERAPY, INC., and JAYSON
ROSETT
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
STATE FARM MUTUAL’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT CHINTAN DESAI, M.D. (DE 477)

This matter is before the Court for consideration of State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm’s”) motion for sanctions against
Defendant Chintan Desai, M.D. (DE 477), Defendant Desai’s response in
opposition (DE 509), State Farm’s reply (DE 523) and the joint statement of
resolved and unresolved issues (DE 538). All discovery matters have been referred
to me for hearing and determination (DE 229), and a hearing was held on this
motion on July 10, 2019, at which the Court entertained oral argument.
“[A] court has broad discretion over discovery matters, and in deciding
discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and
his order is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.” State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Spine Specialists of Mich., No. 14-13299, 2016 WL
8787121, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2016) (internal citation omitted); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be
construed, administered and employed by the court and the parties to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”).
Rule 37(b)(2) provides that where a party “fails to obey an order to provide or
permit discovery … the court where the action is pending may issue further just
orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). In addition, the Court has the inherent authority
to sanction litigants who disobey judicial orders, which “derives from its equitable
power to control the litigants before it and to guarantee the integrity of the court
2

and its proceedings.” Dell, Inc. v. Elles, No. 07-2082, 2008 WL 4613978, at *2
(6th Cir. June 10, 2008) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-50
(1991)).
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument of counsel, and
for all of the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby
incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, State Farm’s motion for
sanctions against Desai (DE 477) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
State Farm requests that the Court sanction Desai for his alleged discovery
misconduct, asking that State Farm be permitted to forensically image Desai’s
personal devices and email accounts, at Desai’s expense. (DE 477.) Desai opposes
this motion, arguing that he has reasonably and in good faith responded to
discovery requests, and submits his and his IT expert’s affidavits in support. (DE
509.) Without contesting the veracity of those affidavits, the Court notes that the
record is filled with examples of Desai seemingly selectively forgetting requested
information, such as email and/or bank accounts, until he is confronted with such
information by State Farm, which has obtained it from other sources, including
production made by other defendants. And the tardiness and “sudden recollection”
with respect to bank accounts comes well after Dr. Desai was under a Courtordered obligation to “produce responsive documents limited to bank statements,
3

evidence of deposits, cancelled checks, and wire transfers, in or out of the account,
on or before August 24, 2018.” (DE 280 at 3.) Accordingly, State Farm is entitled
to some relief, although not the more invasive measure of forensic examination
that it requests on this record. Instead, State Farm shall be permitted to depose
Defendant Desai for two days (for up to seven hours each day), with one of those
days devoted to exploring the issues State Farm has raised in its motion.
If that deposition reveals additional support for a motion for sanctions
against Desai for discovery misconduct, State Farm may renew its motion for
sanctions, limited to a five-page summary, and attach a copy of the complete
deposition transcript, with relevant portions highlighted (and color-coded, if that
makes sense in context). Desai may then file a five-page summary in response,
and attach a copy of the complete deposition transcript, highlighting the portions it
wishes to draw to the Court's attention. The Court notes that it may prove helpful
to videotape this deposition, in the event that the Court is placed in the unfortunate
and undesirable position of having to review it.
Hopefully, there will be no need to file such a renewed motion, and State
Farm is cautioned against doing so unnecessarily. Likewise, Dr. Desai is cautioned
to carefully read Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), and is reminded of his obligation to
supplement discovery responses “in a timely manner if the party learns that in
some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if
4

the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the
other parties during the discovery process or in writing[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1)(A). It would behoove him, with all due haste, to thoroughly review his
existing discovery responses for accuracy, and further supplement them as
necessary, well in advance of his looming deposition.
Finally, the Court declines to award costs to either side, as the motion for
sanctions was granted in part and denied in part and, therefore, neither party fully
prevailed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2019

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5