Simply Bright Ideas, Inc. v. Worth Investment Group, LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER Vacating the Court's Order to Show Cause #34 , granting in part and denying in part #30 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part #31 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SIMPLY BRIGHT IDEAS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:19-cv-11718
District Judge Paul D. Borman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

WORTH INVESTMENT
GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No.
34), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 30) AND PLANTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 31)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of: (1) Plaintiff’s
motion for an order to show cause against non-party Makers Company, Inc. (ECF
No. 32) and the Court’s subsequent show cause order (ECF No. 34); (2)
Defendants’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff’s response in
opposition (ECF No. 37), Defendants’ reply (ECF No. 39), and the parties’ joint
lists of unresolved issues (ECF Nos. 41 & 42); and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery (ECF No. 31), Defendants’ response in opposition (ECF No. 36), and the
parties’ joint lists of unresolved issues (ECF Nos. 41 & 42). Judge Borman
referred these motions to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 33.) As a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a hearing was held via Zoom technology on

October 14, 2020, at which counsel for the parties and a non-attorney
representative from non-party Makers Company, Inc. appeared, and the Court
entertained oral argument regarding the motions.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of
the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are hereby incorporated by
reference as though fully restated herein, the Court VACATES its order to show
cause (ECF No. 34), as Plaintiff has filed no proof that it served the subject
subpoena upon non-party Makers Company, Inc., and GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART each motion to compel (ECF Nos. 30 & 31) as follows:
 The Court finds that the relevant time period for the discovery at
issue in each motion is October 4, 2011 to February 28, 2019, and
limits all discovery ordered herein to that time period.
 Interrogatory No. 19 of Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories
and Requests for Production: The Court finds Interrogatory No. 19
to be overbroad, but orders that Plaintiff SUPPLEMENT its
response, limited to the relevant time period listed above, as well
as to the definition of “products” and the defined territories
contained in the Agreement at issue (see ECF No. 18-2,
PageID.175). However, Defendants may explore the topic raised
in Interrogatory No. 19 without these limitations at the upcoming
deposition of Plaintiff’s principal, in order to explore his
background.
 Interrogatory Nos. 20-23 of Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production: The Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to each based on relevancy,
in light of Defendants’ affirmative defenses of unclean hands and
material breach of contract, and in light of the Agreement’s
requirement that Plaintiff use ethical business practices. Thus, the
Court orders that Plaintiff SUPPLEMENT its responses to
2

Interrogatory Nos. 20, 21, 22, and 23, limited to the relevant time
period listed above.
 Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25 of Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production: The Court orders that
Plaintiff RESPOND to Interrogatory Nos. 24 and 25, limited to the
relevant time period listed above and to the territories identified in
the Agreement at issue (see ECF No. 18-2, PageID.175).
 Interrogatory No. 26 of Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories
and Requests for Production: The Court orders that Plaintiff
RESPOND to Interrogatory No. 26 by providing a breakdown of
compensation as described therein to the extent possible.
 Requests to Produce Nos. 1 and 2 of Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production: If Plaintiff identifies
documents responsive to Requests to Produce Nos. 1 and 2 in the
course of responding or supplementing its responses to the above
Interrogatories, it shall PRODUCE those documents.
 Requests to Produce Nos. 9 and 10 of Plaintiff’s First Set of
Discovery Requests (see ECF No. 31-4): The Court SUSTAINS
IN PART Defendants’ objection that Request to Produce Nos. 9
and 10 are overbroad. Thus, the Court orders that Defendants
SUPPLEMENT their responses to Requests to Produce Nos. 9
and 10 and PRODUCE Qualite Sales Orders, Qualite Order
Forms, Qualite Quotations, and e-mails or other communications
with StessCrete, Valmont, Baldwin, and Makers Sales for poles or
other equipment quoted for jobs, bids, or opportunities, limited to
the relevant time period listed above, and to the territories listed in
the Agreement at issue (see ECF No. 18-2, PageID.175; ECF No.
31-4, PageID.566, 593-595). This ruling is without prejudice to
Plaintiff seeking more information if it later obtains a favorable
ruling on the issue of whether the contract provided Plaintiff with
the exclusive right to sell Qualite Sports Lighting, LLC Products in
the defined territory, as raised in Defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment (ECF No. 18); however, the Court does not
promise that any more discovery will be permitted, as all such
requests would still be subject to the requirements of
3

discoverability and proportionality set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1).
 Requests to Produce Nos. 9-13 of Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Discovery Requests (see ECF No. 31-5): The Court SUSTAINS
IN PART Defendants’ objections based on proportionality.
However, the Court orders that Defendants SUPPLEMENT their
responses and PRODUCE the documents requested in Requests to
Produce Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, limited to the relevant time
period listed above.
 Requests to Produce Nos. 14 and 15 of Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Discovery Requests (see ECF No. 31-5): Requests to Produce Nos.
14 and 15 have been WITHDRAWN.
The parties must fully comply with this Order by Wednesday October 28,
2020, and all depositions must be completed prior to mediation, which is currently
scheduled for November 19, 2020. Finally, the Court awards no costs, neither
party having prevailed in full. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2020

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4