United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
BIO-BEHAVIORAL CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., A Michigan limited liability company, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
DOCTORS BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL, LLC., d/b/a Doctors Neuropsychiatric Hospital, an Indiana limited liability company, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC.
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a contract case. Plaintiff Bio-Behavioral Care Solutions, LLC
is suing defendant Doctors Behavioral Hospital, LLC claiming
that defendant breached a contract (Marketing Agreement)
between the parties, it seeks $195, 000 in
damages. In broad terms, plaintiff performs
marketing services for hospitals which it says results in
hospitals obtaining business relationships with long term
care facilities that use the services offered by the
hospitals. Defendant, a hospital in Indiana, was interested
in building relationships with nursing homes and assisted
care facilities in Western Michigan. In 2012, defendant and
plaintiff entered into a Marketing Agreement in which
plaintiff agreed to provide management and consulting
services to defendant.
says that it provided services under the Marketing Agreement
and defendant has refused to pay. The complaint (Doc. 1) is
in four counts:
Count I - Account Stated
Count II - Breach of Contract
Count III - Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit
Count IV - Promissory Estoppel
filed a one count counterclaim, stating that plaintiff
breached the Marketing Agreement by failing to fulfill its
obligations. (Doc. 3). Both sides seek money damages.
the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel. For the
reasons that follow, the motion will be granted and plaintiff
will be awarded its attorney fees and expenses associated
with the motion.
after the complaint was filed, plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 12) claiming that there is no genuine
issue of material fact that defendant has breached the
defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the affidavit
testimony of two individuals or to compel answers to
deposition questions (Doc. 32).
briefing on the motion, plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel, contending that discovery requests sent to defendant
after it filed its motion for summary judgment are relevant
to its claims for liability and damages. (Doc.
light of the fact that discovery was not complete, the Court
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
defendant's motion to strike without prejudice. The Court
also observed that based on the summary judgment papers,
there appeared to be factual disputes. (Doc. 40).
case is supported in part on a document obtained during
discovery from defendant entitled “Doctors Behavioral
Hospital, LLC A/P Aging Detail.” A/P is presumed to
mean “account payable.” This document appears to