Conlan Abu et al v. Dickson et al

Filing 34

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request for Attorney Fees and Fully Resolving Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CONLAN ABU and RYAN
MOORE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:20-cv-10747
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
STANLEY B. DICKSON and
DICKSON & ASSOCIATES, PC,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES
AND FULLY RESOLVING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY (ECF No. 24)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel discovery (ECF No. 24), Defendants’ response in opposition (ECF No. 27),
and Plaintiffs’ reply (ECF No. 28). Judge Parker referred this motion to me for a
hearing and determination. (ECF No. 25.) As the parties resolved the substance
of the motion by stipulated order (ECF No. 33), the only remaining issue before
the Court is the payment of expenses incurred in making the motion (see Joint
Statement of Unresolved Issues, ECF No. 31, PageID.1218). A hearing via Zoom
was held on November 30, 2021, at which counsel for both parties appeared and
the Court entertained oral argument regarding the question of attorney fees and
expenses.

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, Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees within
the motion to compel (ECF No. 24, PageID.866, 890-891) is DENIED. In
denying Plaintiffs’ request, the Court finds that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ counsel admitted on the record to failing to follow
Judge Parker’s Practice Guidelines requiring counsel to contact
chambers before filing a discovery motion, which may and likely
would have obviated the need for the instant motion.
(2) The admittedly very brief meet-and-confer conference between the
parties’ counsel before the motion was filed appears to have dealt
only with a small fraction of the discovery requests ultimately at
issue. (See ECF No. 27-3, PageID.1118-1119.) Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A)(i); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a).
(3) The primary requests at issue—Requests for Production 29-31—
were highly specific, enough to create a genuine dispute as to
proper compliance, even if more could have been produced in the
first instance. (ECF No. 24-2, PageID.915-916.)
(4) The parties made mutual ongoing efforts to resolve the dispute
both before and after the motion was filed, which resulted in the
stipulated order referenced above (ECF Nos. 27-3, 33).
(5) Defendants’ response to the motion (ECF No. 27) was
substantially, if not entirely, justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
This ruling fully resolves Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses.
(ECF No. 24.)

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2021

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3