Brown v. Avon Machining, LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FOUR DEPOSITIONS (ECF No. 44 ). Signed by District Judge Susan K. DeClercq. (KBro)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MELISSA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. AVON MACHINING, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11294 Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FOUR DEPOSITIONS (ECF No. 44) For the reasons stated on the record during the March 6, 2025 hearing on Plaintiff Melissa Brown’s Motion to Compel Four Depositions, ECF No. 44, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Four Depositions, ECF No. 44, is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiff may depose Jack Kolodny and Fred Tedori strictly subject to the following limitations: • Each deposition shall be limited to four hours. • Counsel may ask deponents about their personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s termination. • Counsel may ask deponents questions which narrowly relate to the determination of whether Defendants Avon Machining, LLC (“Avon”) and Auxo Investment Partners, LLC (“Auxo”) were Plaintiff’s joint employer. • Counsel may not ask deponents about any matter preceding Auxo’s acquisition of Avon. • Counsel may not ask deponents about any corporate entities other than Auxo and Avon. • Counsel may not ask deponents about Avon’s former CEO, Chad Fietsam. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Four Depositions, ECF No. 44, is DENIED IN PART in all other respects; and 3. Defendant Auxo is DIRECTED to produce Jack Kolodny and Fred Tedori for deposition on or before March 28, 2025. This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: March 7, 2025 -2-

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?