Shapiro v. Sherr et al

Filing 40

ORDER Overruling 33 Plaintiff's Objections and Upholding 30 Order. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (BGar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Margot Shapiro,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-11187

Roger Sherr, et al.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND UPHOLDING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 12/4/18 ORDER
The parties filed two motions seeking to compel discovery in this action: 1) a Motion to
Compel Documents filed by Defendants (ECF No. 18); and 2) a Motion to Compel Documents
filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 21). This Court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
Stafford.
After hearing from the parties in writing regarding their respective positions, the
magistrate judge heard oral argument on December 3, 2018. During that hearing, the magistrate
judge set forth her rulings, and the reasons for same, on the record. Thereafter, she issued an
Order on December 4, 2018, wherein she: 1) denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without
prejudice; and 2) granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants’ Motion to Compel. She
granted that motion with regard to Defendants’ Document Requests Number 1 and 5 but denied
the motion as to Request Number 6.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed Objections to the December 4, 2018 order. (ECF No. 33).

1

Those objections do not pertain to the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s own Motion to
Compel. Rather, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling as to Document Requests
Number 5 and 6 in Defendants’ Motion to Compel. Defendants filed a response to those
objections. (ECF No. 36).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), this Court must modify or set aside any part of the
order in question “that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Having reviewed the relevant motion, the magistrate judge’s order, the transcript of the
motion hearing during which the magistrate judge set forth the basis for her rulings, Plaintiff’s
objections, and Defendants’ response to same, this Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown
that the magistrate judge’s rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Her rulings are wellreasoned and supported by the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. As such, the Court hereby
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and UPHOLDS the magistrate judge’s December 4, 2018
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: February 21, 2019

2