RE/MAX, LLC v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 12 Motion to Conduct Pre-Conference Hearing Telephonically - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RE/MAX, LLC,
Plaintiff,

No. 17-50617

v.

District Judge David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
The Court has set a July 11, 2017 hearing date for Plaintiff RE/MAX, LLC’s
(“RE/MAX’s”) motion compel response to subpoena to non-party In-House Realty LLC
(“In-House”)[Doc. #1], and Defendant Quicken Loan Inc.’s (“Quicken Loan’s”) motion
to quash third-party subpoena [Doc. #9]. The Notice of Hearing for these motions
directed counsel for the parties to meet and confer face-to-face in advance of the hearing,
in an attempt to resolve some or all of the issues raised in the motions [Doc. #11]. A
party requesting a telephonic pre-hearing conference is required to “submit a written
statement to the Magistrate Judge explaining why a telephonic conference is necessary.”
The current discovery motion is ancillary to a proceeding in the District of
Colorado. Non-party In-House, from whom documents are requested, is domiciled in
Michigan. Counsel for RE/MAX requests a telephonic conference because lead counsel
in the underlying case resides in the State of Colorado [Doc. #12]. In-House objects, and
and has requested enforcement of the face-to-face meet-and-confer policy [Doc. #13].
The docket sheet indicates that in terms of the present ancillary proceeding, all
-1-

counsel of record are located in the Eastern District of Michigan, specifically Troy,
Birmingham, and Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Court’s meet-and-confer policy will be
satisfied in the Michigan attorneys of record meet face-to-face, and the Court orders that
they do so, pursuant to the Notice of Hearing.
However, “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this proceeding,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, would not be well-served by requiring Colorado counsel in the underlying
case to personally appear for the meet-and-confer in Michigan, and I am confident that
pre-hearing discussions can be productive if out-of-state counsel participates either by
telephone, Skype, or videoconference. I will leave it to counsel to agree on which of
these mechanisms works best for them.1
Therefore, both RE/MAX’s and In-House’s requests are GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Michigan counsel of record in this ancillary proceeding will
meet in person for the pre-hearing conference. Out-of-state counsel in the underlying
Colorado action may participate by telephone, Skype, or videoconference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2017

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

If counsel cannot agree, the default procedure will be telephonic participation by
out-of-state counsel.
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on June 29, 2017 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper
with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered
electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF
participants June 29, 2017.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-3-