Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 28 Motion to Compel; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 30 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARBRIE LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:16-CV-10585
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.

MGM GRAND DETROIT CASINO,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION (DE 28)
and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (DE 30)
I.

OPINION:
A.

Background

Plaintiff Barbrie Logan filed this lawsuit pro se against Defendant MGM
Grand Detroit Casino (“Casino”). The facts underlying Plaintiff’s complaint stem
from her employment as a culinary utility person, and her causes of action include
sex discrimination and retaliation. (DE 1.) Judge Parker has referred this case to
me for all pretrial proceedings. (DE 18.)
On May 11, 2016, the Court conducted an in person scheduling conference.
That same day, I entered a scheduling order which, among other things, set the

1 

discovery deadline for January 16, 2017 and the deadline for all motions (other
than motions in limine) for March 2, 2017. (DE 20.) Since that time, Judge Parker
has entered an opinion and order adopting my February 6, 2017 report and
recommendation and denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. (DEs 31, 27, 22.)
B.

Instant Motions

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s February 8, 2017 motion to
compel continued deposition, or, in the alternative, to strike documents, and its
request for extension of dispositive motion cutoff (DE 28), regarding which
Plaintiff has filed a response (DE 29). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 2,
2017 motion to reopen discovery and to compel Defendant to answer
interrogatories (DE 30), regarding which Defendant has filed a response (DE 32).
C.

Discussion
1.

Defendant’s February 8, 2017 motion

It seems that Plaintiff’s deposition was originally noticed for August
11, 2016 but was rescheduled for and occurred on August 29, 2016. (DE 222, DE 22-3, DE 22-4; see also DE 22-7, DE 28-2, DE 32-2.) Defendant
noticed Plaintiff’s continued deposition for November 14, 2016 and renoticed it for December 12, 2016. (DE 22-8, DE 22-9.) Defendant contends
that, on December 9, 2016, Plaintiff indicated she would not be appearing
2 

for the December 12, 2016 deposition. (DE 22-10; see also DE 22-11.)
Defendant then filed a December 22, 2016 motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute, which was ultimately denied by Judge Parker on March 7, 2017.
(DE 22, 27, 31.)
Meanwhile, after I issued the February 6, 2017 report and
recommendation but before Judge Parker ruled upon the related motion to
dismiss, Defendant filed the instant February 8, 2017 motion, wherein it
sought three forms of relief:
(1)

that Plaintiff may appear at Defendant’s office within 14-days
of entry of an order to review a copy of her deposition transcript
and, if necessary, fill out an errata sheet;

(2)

that Plaintiff appear for her deposition, up to three hours, within
14-days after her review of her transcript or within 28 days of
the date of this order if she waives any review; and

(3)

that this Court extend the current March 2, 2017, dispositive
motion deadline in this matter by 60-days to allow completion
of the above.

(DE 28 at 2.) On March 1, 2017, by way of a text order, the Court granted that
portion of Defendant's motion which requested an extension to the dispositive
motion deadline, extended only the deadline for filing dispositive motions to April
13, 2017, and took the remainder of the motion under advisement.
Upon consideration, the remaining portions of Defendant’s motion are
granted. To be clear, the Court is not concluding that Plaintiff has violated Fed. R.
3 

Civ. P. 37. (DE 29 at 2 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Moreover, the Court has considered the February
7, 2017 e-mail exchange between Plaintiff and defense counsel, as well as
Plaintiff’s assertion that the post-hearing “mediated meeting” held on February 2,
2017 was not a “good faith meet and confer.” (DE 28-4, DE 29 at 2 ¶ 4; see also
DE 29 at 31-35.) However, under the particular circumstances of this case, and
having personally attended the conference, which was held in my jury room, I
conclude that the “meet and confer” requirement of E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a), and the
intentions of my practices guidelines on this subject, have been satisfied.
On the merits of its motion, Defendant shall be permitted to continue
Plaintiff’s deposition. I disagree with Plaintiff that “[a]nother deposition . . . would
be duplicative, unjust, and is interposed for improper purposes, such as to harass
Plaintiff, delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” (DE 29 at 2 ¶ 3.) In
particular, I note that Defendant has provided copies of certain pages of Plaintiff’s
August 29, 2016 deposition transcript that evidence her understanding that the
deposition would be continued once Defendant received certain documents from
her. (DE 28-2 (pp. 120-121, 141-142).) Also, Defendant has provided copies of
91-pages purporting to be the notes that Plaintiff produced following her
deposition. (DE 28-1, 28-3.) This is a significant enough amount of material to
warrant continuing Plaintiff’s deposition, especially considering that the deposition
began around 10:13 a.m. and concluded at approximately 3:44 p.m. (DE 22-7 at 2
4 

(pp. 1, 4), DE 28-2 at 5 (p. 142).) In other words, given Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1)’s
general limitation on the duration of a deposition “to one day of 7 hours[,]”
Defendant’s assertion that “Plaintiff's August 29, 2016 deposition took up 229
minutes of on-the-record time (3.8 hours)[,]” (DE 22 at 7), and considering that the
deposition was ceased on August 29, 2016 for the purpose of obtaining
forthcoming discovery, Defendant will be permitted the requested 3 hours to
continue Plaintiff’s deposition.1
Finally, in light of the extension of the discovery period addressed below,
the Court further extends the dispositive motion deadline to Tuesday, June 13,
2017.
2.

Plaintiff’s March 2, 2017 motion

On October 31, 2016, Defendant served answers to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories Nos. 1-12 and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 115. (DE 30 at 15-27.) Plaintiff contends that most of the answers she

1

The Court notes Plaintiff’s statement that Defendant “did not request that [she]
bring any documents to the [August 29, 2016] deposition.” (DE 29 at 2 ¶ 1; see
also DE 22-2, DE 22-3, DE 22-4.) Even setting aside the notes Plaintiff seems to
have produced after her deposition (DE 28-3), it seems that there was discovery
outstanding at the time of her August 29, 2016 deposition. (See, i.e., DE 22-5
(Defendant’s July 20, 2016 discovery requests to Plaintiff), DE 22-6 (extensions of
response deadline to September 2016). The Court also acknowledges that
Defendant could have delayed the initial deposition until all requested documents
had been received; nevertheless, in the interest of justice, proportionality and
reasonable disclosure, the deposition should be fulfilled. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 &
26(b)(1).
5 

received on or about November 3, 2016 “raised unwarranted objections, and
incomplete or untrue answers.” (DE 30 at 8.)
On December 27, 2016, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s
Second Interrogatories Nos. 1-32. (DE 30 at 29-44.) Plaintiff claims that
Defendant “failed to provide complete and/or true answers to those
interrogatories.” (DE 30 at 9.)
Thereafter, the parties exchanged e-mail regarding the second set of
interrogatories, and Plaintiff expressed her desire to discuss an extension of
the discovery deadline. (DE 29 at 19-22.) On or about January 10, 2017,
the parties met and conferred, and it seems they discussed, inter alia, Second
Interrogatories Nos. 1-28, her continued deposition, and an extension of
discovery. (DE 30 at 46-51; see also DE 29 at 24-29.)
Nearly two months later, on March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant
motion. (DE 30.) She seeks two forms of relief:
(1)

that Defendant provide answers to Plaintiff’s First and Second
Set of Interrogatories, in good faith, as required in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a), and 26(b), and/or any other proper rule as determined
by this Court; [and]

(2)

that this Court reopen discovery for 60 days to allow for the
likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.

(DE 30 at 2.)

6 

Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice in
part and granted in part.2 As to the substance of Plaintiff’s various discovery
requests, it is not clear to this Court which of the discovery requests - 44
total interrogatories or 15 requests for production of documents - are at issue
in this motion. Although Plaintiff’s attachment of Defendant’s answers to
the discovery requests satisfies E.D. Mich. LR 37.2, and although Plaintiff
contends that the supplementation Defendant agreed to on January 10, 2017
has yet to occur,3 the motion itself does not identify which of Defendant’s
answers to interrogatories or responses to requests for production she is
challenging. (DE 30 at 2 ¶ 3, DE 30 at 8-9.)4 Defendant observes as much,
but then attempts to construe the requests at issue. (DE 32 at 8-15.) Though
the Court could guess which of the requests are at issue in this motion, it

2

Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Plaintiff states that she thought she had to wait until
Defendant’s dispositive motion was heard before “proceeding with her anticipated
motions[,]” and she was under the impression that she had until March 2, 2017 –
the motion deadline – to do so. (DE 30 at 7, 9-10.) Although she was not required
to wait to file her discovery motion, she is correct that she had until March 2, 2017
to do so.
3

Plaintiff is presumably referring to Second Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2 and 11. (DE
30 at 46-47.) 

4

As to the first set of discovery requests, she addresses the interrogatories by
subject matter rather than number, claims that “Defendant failed to answer 12 of
12 questions asked by Plaintiff,” and further claims that “Defendant failed to
produce 12 of 15 documents requested.” Then, as to the second set of discovery
requests, she claims that “Defendant failed to provide complete and/or true
answers to those interrogatories.” (See DE 30 at 8-9.)
7 

would be a better use of the Court’s time to deny this motion without
prejudice to Plaintiff refiling her motion and making clear those specific
answers and responses she is challenging, and, as to each, why. She may
refile such a motion on or before April 5, 2017.
As to her request to reopen discovery, Plaintiff has shown good cause
to modify the scheduling order to extend the January 16, 2017 deadline to
complete discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified
only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). First, the Court is
somewhat persuaded by Plaintiff’s pro se status.

Defendant suggests that

need for further discovery is based upon Plaintiff’s own neglect. (See DE 32
at 16.) However, even if, as Defendant claims, Plaintiff is “well versed in
litigation[,]”5 my familiarity with this case – particularly my observations at
the scheduling conference, settlement conference and motion hearing causes me to conclude that some leniency is appropriate. Second, while her
explanation may not be detailed, Plaintiff has set forth reasons to reopen
discovery - “in order to have the opportunity to examine Defendant’s
Answers to Interrogatories, conduct further investigation if necessary, and
depose witnesses and/or obtain witness affidavits[,]” and “to allow for the

5

See Logan v. Royal Oak Township, Case No. 94-72417, 1996 WL 426532 (E.D.
Mich. Jan. 24, 1996). Plaintiff has also filed charges with the Michigan
Employment Relations Commission (MERC) concerning her position with Wayne
County. (DE 32-2 at 2.)
8 

likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” (DE 30 at 2 ¶
2.) Third, while Defendant claims it would be prejudiced “by reopening full
discovery[,]” Plaintiff made her desire to discuss an extension of the
discovery deadline known to Defendant at least as early as January 7, 2017 –
a date before the January 16, 2017 deadline. (DE 32 at 16-17, DE 29 at 22.)
Finally, as Plaintiff points out, she has not previously asked for an
extension of discovery. (DE 30 at 10.)
II.

ORDER
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel continued deposition, or, in the

alternative, to strike documents, and its request for extension of dispositive motion
cutoff (DE 28) is GRANTED. As to Plaintiff’s continued deposition: (1) Plaintiff
may appear at Defendant’s office (or at the office of the court reporter) within 14days of entry of this order to review a copy of her deposition transcript and, if
necessary, fill out an errata sheet; and (2) Plaintiff shall appear for her deposition,
for up to three hours and in one session (excluding lunch or restroom breaks),
within 14-days after her review of her transcript or within 28 days of the date of
this order if she waives any review. If Plaintiff refuses to appear, the laterproduced documents will be stricken from use in this lawsuit and the Court may
order any other sanctions referenced in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Finally, in light of my

9 

simultaneous extension of the discovery period, the Court further extends the
dispositive motion deadline to Tuesday, June 13, 2017.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery and to compel
Defendant to answer interrogatories (DE 30) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks
an extension of the discovery deadline. Accordingly, the deadline for the
completion of discovery is set for Tuesday, May 30, 2017. However, Plaintiff’s
motion (DE 30) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it requests an
order requiring Defendant to supplement its answers and responses to Plaintiff’s
first and second sets of discovery requests. Should Plaintiff refile this request, she
must do so on or before April 5, 2017. Any such motion must clearly identify
which of Defendant’s answers and responses she is challenging and, as to each,
why.
Finally, the parties are reminded that discovery is governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (particularly Rule 26-37), the E.D. Mich. Local Rules
(particularly Local Rules 26.1-37.2) and my on-line practice guidelines.

Dated: March 22, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on March 22, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

11