RE/MAX, LLC v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al
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
District Judge David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
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
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
If counsel cannot agree, the default procedure will be telephonic participation by
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?