T.V. Minority Company, Inc. v. YRC, Inc., d/b/a YRC Freight et al
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 62 Motion to Adjourn; Denying Defendants' 63 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 64 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3737 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
T.V. MINORITY COMPANY,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:19-cv-12544
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
v.
YRC, INC., d/b/a YRC
FREIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ADJOURN SCHEDULING ORDER DATES
AND TO REQUEST A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (ECF No. 62),
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED ANSWER (ECF No. 63), AND GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONTINUATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION (ECF
No. 64)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of: (1) Defendants’
motion to adjourn scheduling order dates and to request a settlement conference
(ECF No. 62), Plaintiff’s response in opposition (ECF No. 70), Defendants’ reply
(ECF No. 81), and the parties’ joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 84); (2)
Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer (ECF No. 63), Plaintiff’s
response in opposition (ECF No. 71), Defendants’ reply (ECF No. 79), and the
parties’ joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 84); and (3) Defendants’ motion to
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3738 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 9
compel continuation of Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition (ECF No.
64), Plaintiff’s response in opposition (ECF No. 69), Defendants’ reply (ECF No.
80), and the parties’ joint list of unresolved issues (ECF No. 84). Judge Tarnow
referred these motions to me for a hearing and determination. (ECF No. 66.) As a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a hearing via Zoom technology was held on
November 17, 2020, at which counsel 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 rules as
follows.
A.
Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Scheduling Order Dates and to Request
a Settlement Conference (ECF No. 62)
Defendants’ motion to adjourn scheduling order dates and to request a
settlement conference (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. To the extent Defendants request a settlement conference, the motion is
GRANTED. The settlement conference is hereby scheduled for Thursday,
March 4, 2021 at 1:30PM, and the parties are advised to read and fully comply
with my Practice Guidelines regarding settlement conferences prior to that date.
To the extent Defendants request an extension of the discovery deadline, the
motion is DENIED. Defendants have had nearly three years since first having
notice of this truck accident, over 13 months since the filing of this lawsuit and a
2
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3739 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 9
full year of formal discovery since the scheduling conference (with two extensions)
to seek information related to the value of the parts lost, but have failed to do so in
a timely fashion. Moreover, the history of this case demonstrates ongoing undue
delay by Defendants in discovery matters, even before the COVID-19 pandemic
and the original March 3, 2020 discovery deadline (ECF No. 8), and their vague
explanations about “scheduling conflicts” do not suffice as a good basis for
granting the relief requested. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 16, 37 & 51; 6/4/20 Text-Only
Order.) The Court finds no reason to reward Defendants’ lack of diligence with an
additional extension of discovery, which expired October 1, 2020 (ECF No. 23),
two weeks prior to Defendants filing the instant motion.
Furthermore, Defendants’ motion is not adequately briefed, and fails to
make the connection as to how or why Plaintiff’s alleged improper behavior at the
plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition has necessitated a general extension of
discovery regarding information to be sought from non-parties or otherwise. The
parties have litigated this matter far beyond what could possibly be justified by this
relatively simple truck accident, in which one truck apparently veered off the
traveled roadway and collided with another truck that was parked on the shoulder,
leading to an alleged rejection of the latter’s cargo by its paying customer (G.M.).
B.
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (ECF No.
63)
3
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3740 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 9
Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer is DENIED for the
reasons stated on the record, including the highlighted ones that follow.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend its pleadings at this stage of
the proceedings only after obtaining leave of court. The Rule provides that the
court should freely give leave for a party to amend its pleading “when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Nevertheless, leave to amend ‘should be
denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in
undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.’” Carson v.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 633 F.3d 487, 495 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995)).
The Court finds both undue delay, as permitting Defendants to amend their
answers as requested would greatly prejudice Plaintiff, and no good cause for such
delay. “Delay alone will ordinarily not justify the denial of leave to amend;
however, delay will at some point become ‘undue,’ ‘placing an unwarranted
burden on the court,’ or ‘prejudicial,’ ‘placing an unfair burden on the opposing
party.’” Comm. Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 347 (6th
Cir. 2007) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Defendants filed the instant motion on October 15, 2020, seeking leave to amend
their answer to reflect that YRC Worldwide, Inc. (YRCW) did not own the truck at
issue or have any connection to this claim (ECF No. 63, PageID.2766), well over a
4
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3741 Filed 11/19/20 Page 5 of 9
year after admitting ownership in their answer (ECF No. 2, PageID.51, ¶ 8), and
two weeks after the October 1, 2020 close of discovery (ECF No. 23). And,
Plaintiff filed its pending motion for summary judgment the very next day,
meaning that it was in the very final hours of preparation when leave was first
sought, relying on Defendant YRCW’s admission of ownership (ECF No. 65,
PageID.2842, ¶ 32), consistent with corroborating evidence of ownership
contained in the police accident records (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.21, 27). Plaintiff
had almost certainly completed drafting its motion for summary judgment at the
time Defendants filed the instant motion for leave to amend. Additionally,
Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion relies upon the fact that YRCW employed
Defendant McIntosh, the truck driver, based on YRCW’s responses to requests to
admit; yet at oral argument, YRCW told the Court that this key admission was
also, somehow, “a mistake.” (ECF Nos. 65, PageID. 2841, ¶ 27 & 65-8,
PageID.2976, No. 60.)
As Plaintiff’s discovery strategy and motion for summary judgment have
relied in large part on Defendants’ admissions of ownership and employment
relationship, and discovery closed two weeks before the instant motion was filed,
the timing of Defendants’ request to amend forecloses Plaintiff from further
investigating the issue of ownership through discovery, greatly prejudicing
Plaintiff.
5
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3742 Filed 11/19/20 Page 6 of 9
Furthermore, Defendants’ explanation not only fails to convince the Court
that good cause existed for the delay, but demonstrates to the Court a complete
lack of diligence in both investigating the ownership of the truck, and in bringing
the issue to the Court’s attention. Defendants assert in the instant motion that they
learned of the ownership issue through the course of discovery at the deposition of
their own employee, John Zuckett, in September 2020. But Defendants knew of
the claims in this case a year or more before the lawsuit was filed, and diligence
required Defendants’ counsel to investigate and ascertain the ownership of the
truck at issue prior to answering Plaintiff’s complaint. They certainly did not have
to wait a year to engage in informal discovery and interview their own employee
ex parte. Further, Defendants admitted at oral argument that they learned that
YRCW may not be the owner of the truck in January or February of 2020 when
answering discovery requests, but continued to let stand their prior admissions of
ownership and employment relationship, and then still took no action to revisit or
correct their pleadings when the same counsel was ordered to file an answer on
Defendant-McIntosh’s behalf in July 2020 (ECF Nos. 37 & 39). Finally,
Defendants’ counsel acknowledged at the hearing a demonstrated lack of diligence
on his part.
Although the Court is unable to discern whether Defendants have acted in
bad faith or with dilatory motive by seeking leave to amend their answer at this late
6
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3743 Filed 11/19/20 Page 7 of 9
juncture, there is at least the indication of such, with Defendants waiting until
Plaintiff could no longer conduct discovery on the issue of ownership to file the
instant motion.
Additionally, Defendants’ request that the Court hold Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment in abeyance until they can adequately oppose the motion
following the completion of depositions Plaintiff’s counsel terminated early is
DENIED, as Defendants requested this relief for the first time in their reply briefs
for both this motion and their motion to adjourn the scheduling order. (ECF Nos.
No. 79, PageID.3577-3578 & 81, PageID.3589.) See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.
Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008) (issues raised for the first time in a
reply brief are waived).
C.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Continuation of Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition (ECF No. 64)
Finally, Defendants’ motion to compel continuation of Plaintiff’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART, for the reasons stated on the record and for the highlighted ones that
follow.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to designate a proper Rule 30(b)(6)
witness, and that Darius Granberry, Plaintiff’s president and the individual
identified as Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, could not answer many of the
questions posed during the deposition, but have not properly supported either
7
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3744 Filed 11/19/20 Page 8 of 9
argument by producing a copy of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Thus, the
Court DENIES the motion on these bases. The Court also disagrees with
Defendants’ argument that Mr. Granberry was unprepared for the deposition and
DENIES the motion on that basis. However, the Court finds some merit to
Defendants’ argument that Mr. Granberry impeded the deposition. Accordingly,
Defendants are permitted to re-submit, in written form under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31,
those deposition questions Mr. Granberry refused to answer on the sole basis of his
own objection (including but not limited to the questions and answers appearing on
pages 12:3 through 13:13 of his deposition transcript (ECF No. 78, PageID.35413542) by Tuesday, November 24, 2020. And the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff
respond to those questions, under oath, by Friday, December 4, 2020.1 Further,
the Court notes, based on its review of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript, that
Plaintiff’s counsel’s use of speaking objections during the deposition in an effort to
argue Plaintiff’s case was not only inappropriate, but uncivil. Nevertheless, as
stated above, the Court cannot pass upon the substantive appropriateness of those
objections without having the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice before it.
Finally, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(d)(2), as Defendants have largely failed to support the instant motion, or
1
The response time is extended from that given from the bench, due to the
Thanksgiving holiday
8
Case 2:19-cv-12544-AJT-APP ECF No. 86, PageID.3745 Filed 11/19/20 Page 9 of 9
meet their burden of demonstrating to the Court that they were prejudiced by
Plaintiff’s alleged abrogation, and awards no costs under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(C), neither party having prevailed in full.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2020
______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
9
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?