Pelichet et al v. Lyon et al

Filing 167

ORDER Deeming Resolved In Part, Granting in part and Denying in Part Defendant's 161 Motion for Protective Order and Extending Certain Deadlines.--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARRYL PELICHET, et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11385
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiffs,
v.
NICK LYON, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/

ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED IN PART, GRANTING IN PART
and DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT HEGIRA PROGRAMS,
INC.’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 161) and
EXTENDING CERTAIN DEADLINES (ECF No. 151)
On February 17, 2021, the individual Plaintiffs served their first
request for production of documents (Nos. 1-4). (ECF No. 161-2.)
Currently before the Court is Defendant Hegira Programs, Inc.’s
(“Hegira’s”) motion for a protective order, which requests entry of “a
Protective Order forbidding Plaintiffs’ discovery requests or, in the
alternative, specifying terms for the discovery requests pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1).” (ECF No. 161, PageID.4065.) Plaintiffs have filed a
response (ECF No. 163), Defendant Hegira has filed a reply (ECF No. 165),
and the parties have filed a joint statement of unresolved issues (ECF No.
166).

1 

On April 21, 2021, I conducted a video conference motion hearing, at
which Attorney Ian T. Cross appeared on behalf of the individual Plaintiffs,
Attorney Simon Frederick Zagada appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Michigan
Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS), Attorney Thomas G.
Cardelli appeared on behalf of Defendant Hegira, and Assistant Attorneys
General Katherine J. Bennett and Ashlee N. Lynn appeared on behalf of the
MDHHS Defendants.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for
the reasons stated on the record, all of which are incorporated by reference
as if restated herein, Defendant Hegira’s motion (ECF No. 161), as narrowed
by the joint statement of unresolved issues (ECF No. 166), is DEEMED
RESOLVED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
as follows:


As agreed upon by the parties, Defendant Hegira will not
be required to produce documents responsive to
Plaintiffs’ Request to Produce #1.



Defendant Hegira’s Claims that Plaintiff’s Requests to
Produce #2 and #3 are overly broad and impose an
undue burden and expense upon Hegira employees in
having to individually search employee emails are
OVERRULED. The individual Plaintiffs are entitled to
the requested information under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1),
and Deborah Olexa’s affidavit (ECF No. 161-3) does not
support the overbreadth and unduly burdensome and
expensive objections. Moreover, there were only four
RTPs, and the forthcoming imposed limitations will
2 

mitigate any burden or expense. Moreover, even if
fulfilling the request may be somewhat “bothersome or
burdensome[,]” it is not “unduly so.” State Farm Mutual
Ins. Co. v. Elite Health Centers, Inc., 364 F. Supp.3d
758, 767 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, going back to 2011, Defendant Hegira
SHALL respond to Requests to Produce Nos. 2 and 3 by
searching email reference lines (i.e., email subject fields)
of the email accounts of those individuals who were part
of Mr. Pelichet’s and Mr. Washington’s treatment teams
(Case Manager, Social Worker, Psychiatrist) for any
references to: (1) Darryl Pelichet or Bonn Washington;
(2) their initials (e.g., DP, D.P., BW, B.W., etc.); and, (3)
their CFP Numbers (which can be supplied by Plaintiffs’
counsel). The search will be at Defendant Hegira’s own
cost. Of course, if the responsive documents implicate
HIPPA as to other patients (i.e., non-parties who have not
put their treatment at issue), then Defendant Hegira may
make such production subject to the stipulated protective
order or redaction, as necessary (ECF No. 102).


As agreed upon by the parties, Defendant Hegira will
produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request to
Produce #4.

Defendant Hegira must serve the above-ordered discovery – written
responses and production in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 – no later
than Wednesday, May 12, 2021. As a result of this deadline, the Court
hereby extends the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines within the
January 29, 2021 order (ECF No. 151, PageID.3943) as follows: (1)
discovery as to Hegira only (i.e., discovery from Plaintiffs to Hegira or from
Hegira to Plaintiffs) is extended from May 5, 2021 to Friday, May 28,

3 

2021, which includes the redepositions of Craig Lemmen and Marway
Johnson; and, (2) the dispositive motion deadline for all parties is extended
from June 8, 2021 to Thursday, July 8, 2021.
The Court does not award costs or expenses, as neither party prevailed
in full, the parties came to the Court in good faith on a matter that required
the Court’s direction and they resolved half of the disputes on their own.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2021

_____________________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4