Childers v. General Motors Company LLC

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 26 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENISE CHILDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-14428
District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO
PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (DE 26)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (DE 26), Defendant’s response (DE 32), Plaintiff’s reply (DE 34), and the
parties’ Joint List of Unresolved Issues (DE 36). Judge Edmunds referred this
motion for hearing and determination on August 30, 2017. (DE 28.)
Plaintiff’s motion came before the Court for a hearing on October 4, 2017.
On the date set for hearing, attorneys Jeffrey M. Thomson and Margaret Carroll
Alli appeared. After engaging in a meet and confer conference in the courtroom at
the Court’s direction, counsel for the parties informed the Court that they had
resolved several of the matters that had been the subject of Plaintiff’s motion.

Counsel for the parties placed a stipulation as to these resolved matters on the
record.
As to the remaining issues, consistent with my findings and reasoning stated
on the record, which are hereby incorporated by reference, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (DE 26), as narrowed by the October 3, 2017 joint list of unresolved issues
(DE 36) and the aforementioned stipulation, is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

2.

Interrogatory No. 3 regarding witnesses: Defendant GM
shall, by October 22, 2017, (a) supplement its answer with a
description of each individual’s knowledge of relevant facts;
and (b) provide to Plaintiff’s counsel the contact information
for those current, non-managerial GM employees listed in
response to Interrogatory No. 3; however this contact
information shall be designated as “For Attorneys’ Eyes
Only.” GM employees listed in response to Interrogatory No.
3 who are employed in a managerial-level or above position
shall be contacted only through counsel for GM, which shall
accept subpoenas on their behalf and make them available to
testify upon request in the absence of a valid objection.
Interrogatory No. 4 and RFP Nos. 9 and 32 regarding
compensation information: Defendant GM shall supplement
its discovery responses by October 22, 2017, with responsive
compensation information for employees at pay grade levels 6,
7 and 8 who were employed in GM’s Audit Services division
(“GMAS”) at the Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan
between August 1, 2012 through February 1, 2017; all
responsive information and documents shall be designated as
“For Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” but may also be shared with
retained expert witnesses if the expert has signed an agreement
to be bound by the protective order and to refrain from sharing
the information with Plaintiff.
2

3.

Interrogatory No. 5 and RFP No. 24 regarding other
instances of workplace violence: Defendant GM will conduct
a search for formal complaints to GM’s Corporate Security
department of “workplace violence” incidents involving nonunion employees at GM’s Renaissance Center location from
January 1, 2012 through February 1, 2017. The parties shall
agree on applicable search terms for the search by October 12,
2017, and GM shall produce responsive documents found
within 30 days from the date the parties agree on such search
terms. In the unlikely event the parties fail to agree upon search
terms, they are to each submit their proposed search terms to
the Undersigned for determination.

Finally, the Court declines to award costs to either side. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37, if a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in
part, the Court may apportion reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A). Here, both sides’ positions were substantially justified and required
rulings from the Court. As such, an award of costs would not be appropriate or just
in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2017

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

3

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on October 5, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

4