Yurek v. Parkway Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. d/b/a Parkway Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING as Unopposed Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Compel and Extend--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHELLE YUREK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-13524
District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

PARKWAY CHRYSLER-JEEP,
INC. d/b/a PARKWAY
CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM,
MICHAEL RILEY, and CHARLES
“CHUCK” R. RILEY,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND
EXTEND DISCOVERY AS UNOPPPOSED (DE 16)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s June 6, 2018
motion to compel and extend discovery. (DE 16.) Plaintiff served Defendants
with Plaintiff’s First Discovery Requests Directed to Defendants on February 16,
2018 and, as of the filing of the motion, Defendants had not yet answered those
requests. Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) order Defendants to provide responses to
the interrogatories and produce documents responsive to the requests with no
objections; (2) extend the discovery deadline; and (3) award Plaintiff costs and
attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the motion. This matter was referred to

me on June 20, 2018. (DE 18.) To date, Defendants have not filed a response in
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
Under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(e)(2)(b), Defendants’
response in opposition was due fourteen days after the motion was served, or June
20, 2018. To date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (DE 16) is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED as follows:
1. Defendants shall serve written responses and produce responsive
documents, without objections, to Plaintiff’s First Discovery Requests
Directed to Defendants by Wednesday, July 11, 2018;
2. All of Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s First Discovery Requests
Directed to Defendants, with the exception of objections based on
attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, are deemed
waived for Defendants’ failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Lairy v. Detroit Med. Ctr., No.
12-11668, 2012 WL 5268706, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2012) (“As a
general rule, failure to respond to discovery requests within the thirty
days provided by Rules 33 and 34 constitutes a waiver of any
objection.”) (quoting Carfagno v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., No. 99-118,
2001 WL 34059032, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2001)). Defendants are
reminded of their obligation to provide a privilege log describing any
documents withheld as privileged or work product. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(5);
3. The discovery deadline is extended to August 15, 2018; and
4. Plaintiff is awarded her reasonable costs and attorney’s fees associated
with the preparation of this motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5),
and shall submit an itemized bill of costs for the Court’s consideration
via ECF on or before July 2, 2018 in support thereof; thereafter, any
specific objections to the amount of fees or costs being sought must be
filed by Defendants on or before July 6, 2018.

2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 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 June 27, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

3