Chopra, M.D. et al v. Physicians Medical Center, LLC et al
Filing
35
ORDER Regarding Discovery Submissions. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VARUN CHOPRA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 16-13915
PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY SUBMISSIONS
At the request of the Parties, this court held telephonic status conferences on
March 6, 2017, and March 20, 2017, in an effort to resolve disagreements regarding the
scope of discovery and scheduling of depositions. First, the court circulated an informal
memorandum suggesting an agreed-upon path toward resolving these problems. As the
Parties could not reach an agreement upon a deposition schedule, the court, following a
telephonic status conference where the Parties agreed to abide by the court’s
suggestions, directed compliance with a proposed schedule based upon informal
memoranda that the Parties had emailed the court regarding their own scheduling
suggestions. The court indicated that, in the event that they need to deviate from the
below schedule the Parties should do so by agreement:
Affiliation
Deponent Name
Date and Place
Plaintiff
Dr. Chopra
March 28, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Defendant's
choice
Plaintiff
Poonam Chopra
March 29, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Defendant's
choice
Plaintiff
Satish Chopra
March 29, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Defendant's
choice
Defendant
Carol Samson
March 30, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Plaintiff's
choice
Defendant
Dr. Nick Hemady
March 30, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Plaintiff's
choice
Defendant
Priyam Sharma
March 30, 2017 at 10:00 am location: Plaintiff's
choice
The court has since received unsolicited letters from counsel for each side of the
dispute outlining continuing problems with the smooth and diligent completion of
discovery. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have unilaterally cancelled the depositions of
their witnesses. Defendants in turn allege that this is justified by deposition testimony
from Satish Chopra that he believes Defendants have committed crimes and is
considering filing a criminal complaint with the F.B.I., permitting them to invoke their
Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
As an initial matter, counsel should not submit letters directly to the court in lieu
of formal motion practice. See, e.g., E.D. Mich. Civility Principles, No. 6 (“We will not
send letters to the Court . . . that contain argument or criticize counsel in connection
with a pending action, unless invited . . .”). Should the parties feel the need for recourse
to the court in resolving their remaining discovery problems and believe that written
2
argumentation rather than informal conferences are the most efficient avenue, they
should submit a motion for the court’s consideration upon an expedited basis.1 The
court shall otherwise simply disregard any matter included in an informal letter, as it will
with those that they Parties have already submitted.
Finally, and in the interests of expeditiously resolving outstanding disagreement,
this court notes a succinct yet thorough treatment by Magistrate Judge Goldman of the
proper procedure for lodging Fifth Amendment privilege objections:
A witness may refuse to answer questions in a civil proceeding if the
answer would in itself support a criminal conviction or would provide a link
in a chain of evidence sufficient to connect the witness with a crime. The
risk of criminal prosecution must be real and not merely imaginary, remote
or speculative. For that reason, courts typically require a witness to face
questioning, assert the privilege as to each question and, where
necessary, provide evidence showing the risk of criminal prosecution. By
requiring the witness to assert the privilege as to each question, the court
can develop a record upon which to review the validity of the assertion of
privilege. It is for the court to determine whether a witness has validly
asserted the privilege.
Nunn v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 96-71416, 1998 WL 34113236, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Apr. 8, 1998) (citations omitted).
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 3, 2017
1
The parties should take care that in filing any motion they comply with applicable
local rules. See, e.g., E.D. Mich. LR 7.1, 37.1, 37.2.
3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 3, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 984-2056
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16-13915.CHOPRA.DiscoveryOrder.bss.wpd
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?