FC Meyer Packaging, LLC v. Converting Alternatives International
**ERROR DISREGARD THIS ENTRY** ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on February 27, 2017. (jg) Modified on 2/27/2017 (CS).
in Michigan. This factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Moreover, while discovery disputes have
arisen in this case as evidenced by the current motion, the Court does not construe these disputes
to be especially significant, nor does the court anticipate significant disputes arising during the
deposition. This factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. Finally, Plaintiff has not persuaded the
Court that equity favors a deposition site in Mississippi as opposed to Michigan.
Balancing the above factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that the
deposition should be taken in Mississippi. Thus, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of CAI shall be
taken in Michigan.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
The Motion  to Compel Discovery Responses and Certain Depositions filed
by Plaintiff is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below;
Defendant shall provide a response to Interrogatories No. 15 and 16 by providing
the identity of the individual(s) who installed and inserted the electronic device
into the machine including the name, address and occupation of the individual(s)
involved. Further, Defendant shall provide the date the device was installed.
Plaintiff’s request that it be allowed to take the depositions of Marshall Williams
and Dave Johnson telephonically is GRANTED as unopposed.
Plaintiff’s request that it take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant in Mississippi
is DENIED. The deposition shall take place in Michigan.
All other relief requested in the motion, including any request for fees, is
SO ORDERED this the 27th day of February, 2017.
s/ Michael T Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
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?