Childers v. General Motors Company LLC

Filing 58

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 47 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (DE 47)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to
compel filed on December 12, 2017 (DE 47), Defendant’s response (DE 54),
Plaintiff’s reply (DE 55), and the parties’ Joint List of Unresolved Issues (DE 57).
Judge Edmunds referred this motion for hearing and determination on December
13, 2017. (DE 49.) The parties appeared for a telephonic status conference on
December 15, 2017, and agreed to a stipulated order delaying briefing and decision
on this motion pending an upcoming facilitation. (Minute entry, 12/15/2017.)
Following a telephonic status conference with the parties on January 29, 2018, the
Court entered a notice of hearing and set a briefing schedule on January 30, 2018.
(DE 51.) On February 22, 2018, the hearing was re-noticed, by consent of the
parties, for March 12, 2018. (DE 56.)

On March 12, 2018, attorneys Jeffrey M. Thomson and Margaret Carroll
Alli appeared. For the reasons stated on the record, and consistent with my
findings and reasoning stated on the record, all of which are incorporated by
reference as though fully restated herein, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (DE 47), as
narrowed by the March 8, 2018 joint list of unresolved issues (DE 57), is DENIED
without prejudice (as to Request Nos. 5-7) and DENIED as moot (as to all
remaining issues) as follows:
1.

Request Nos. 5-7 seeking personal and/or GM-issued cellular
phones for non-parties Yazmin Wong, Crystal Gonzales, and
Dottie Appleman: These requests, as stated in Plaintiff’s Second
Requests for Production, are denied without prejudice because they
are overly broad, unduly burdensome, overly intrusive, and Plaintiff
has not made a showing that she has attempted to obtain the
information sought through less intrusive means.
However, the Court recognizes that there may be potentially relevant
information on the cellular phones of Ms. Wong, Ms. Gonzales and
Ms. Appleman. Accordingly, after a protective order is entered in this
case, confidential documents have been produced, including requested
emails, and after Plaintiff has had an opportunity to depose Ms.
Wong, Ms. Gonzales and Ms. Appleman, Plaintiff may again seek to
inspect the cellular phones of those individuals, if needed, if she meets
her burden to show: (1) that she has been unable to obtain the
information sought through less intrusive means; and, (2) that there is
a supportable basis for believing that the phones in question are likely
to contain relevant, discoverable information and of what that
information is likely to consist. The Court cautions that any future
cell phone inspection requests must be narrowly tailored as to both
time and scope, and, before the Court will consider another motion to
compel their inspection, the parties must: (a) exchange proposed
search terms; (b) attempt to develop an agreed protocol for inspection
of the cellular phone(s); and, (c) attempt to agree as to (i) which
phones are to be searched, (ii) by whose expert and, (iii) at whose
2 

expense. If Plaintiff ultimately obtains such discovery, she will have
leave to re-open the depositions of Ms. Wong, Ms. Gonzales and/or
Ms. Appleman, if necessary, for the limited purpose of questioning
the witnesses on information uncovered through the cell phone
inspections.
2.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion to compel (DE 47), as narrowed
by the March 8, 2018 joint list of unresolved issues (DE 57) and the
statements of counsel made on the record, is denied as moot.

Finally, as stated on the record, the Court declines to award costs to either
side because 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: March 12, 2018

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

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on March 12, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3