Davis v. Echo Valley Condominium Association et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion to Compel-Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHYLLIS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-12475
District Judge David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

ECHO VALLEY
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(DE 51)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the above-described
motion (DE 51), a related exhibit (DE 53), Defendants Echo Valley Condominium
Association and Casa Bella Property Management, Inc.’s response (DE 56),
Plaintiff’s reply (DE 61), and the parties’ statement of resolved/unresolved issues
(DE 62). Judge Lawson referred this motion to me for hearing and determination.
(DE 52.)
Plaintiff’s motion came before the Court for a hearing on May 22, 2018. On
the date set for hearing, attorneys Justin A. Barry, Alan J. Gocha, and Kay R.
Butler appeared. Consistent with my findings and reasoning stated on the record,
which are hereby incorporated by reference, Plaintiff’s motion to compel

production of documents (DE 51), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as follows:
1.

While the Court agrees that Defendants have waived their
objections (see DE 51 at 14-15), in light of the scope of the
pleadings and the scope of discovery and proportionality factors
set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), it nonetheless concludes
that Document Request Nos. 1 and 4-9 are temporally
overbroad and shall be limited to seven (7) years.. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). See also, Raub v. Moon Lake Prop.
Owners Ass'n, No. 15-13480, 2016 WL 6275392, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 27, 2016) (Ludington, J.).

2.

The Court finds that the written responses given by Defendant
are adequate. Plaintiff’s counsel shall avail themselves of the
opportunity to inspect the documents, which Defendant
previously offered for inspection, no later than Thursday, May
31, 2018. To the extent Plaintiff believes that additional
documents exist within the scope of her original document
requests and have not been produced (see DE 51 at 15-24):

a.

On or before Tuesday, May 29, 2018, Plaintiff may
propound a maximum of ten (10) additional document
requests, each of which must be within the scope of
Document Request Nos. 1-9 at issue here and each of
which must be narrowly targeted with specific, cited
record support. Defendants shall respond to any such
discovery requests no later than Friday, June 22, 2018.

b.

As stipulated on the record, to the extent material
responsive to Document Request No. 1 yields ballots,
these items may be produced subject to the parties’
agreed-upon, “attorney eyes only” protective order (see
DE 61 at 1).

Finally, the Court declines to award expenses and fees to either side. (See, e.g., DE
51 at 3-4, 24-25.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, if a motion to

2

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, the issues argued
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 4, 2017

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 May 22, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3