United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
TERMINATE OR LIMIT DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF
LAURIE CROSSLEY  AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d)(2) 
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on two competing motions
concerning Defendant Minnesota Life Insurance Company's
Deposition of Plaintiff, Laurie Crossley: Plaintiff's
Motion to Terminate or Limit Defendant's Deposition of
Plaintiff Laurie Crossley (docket no. 13), and
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Under Fed.R.Civ.P.
30(d)(2) (docket no. 20). Defendant filed a Response (docket
no. 21) to Plaintiff's Motion, and Plaintiff filed a
Response (docket no. 24) to Defendant's Motion. Defendant
also filed a Reply in support of its Motion. (Docket no. 27.)
The motions have been referred to the undersigned for
consideration. (Docket nos. 18, 22.) The Court has reviewed
the pleadings and dispenses with oral argument pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The Court
is now ready to rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
preliminary matter, the Court notes that in Plaintiff's
Motion, she fails to indicate that she sought concurrence
from Defendant prior to filing the motion in accordance with
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a). Defendant
does not address Plaintiff's efforts to seek concurrence
in its Response. “Seeking concurrence from the opponent
is a mandatory directive of the Local Rules of this
District.” U.S. v. Ramesh, No. 02-80756, 2009
WL 817549, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2009). While the Court
is inclined to deny Plaintiff's Motion on this basis, it
will instead decide Plaintiff's motions on the merits.
husband died following a motorcycle accident in 2015.
Plaintiff filed a claim on her late husband's life
insurance policy with Defendant, Minnesota Life Insurance
Company, but Defendant denied the claim, citing 1) hospital
records which Defendant argues show that the decedent was
intoxicated at the time of the crash, and 2) the
decedent's life insurance policy, which provides that:
In no event will we pay a benefit where your loss or injury
is caused directly or indirectly by, results from, or there
is contribution from, any of the following
: . . . .
(6) motor vehicle collision or accident where you are the
operator of the motor vehicle and your blood alcohol level
meets or exceeds the level at which intoxication is defined
in the state where the collision or accident occurred,
regardless of the outcome of any legal proceedings connected
(Docket no. 20-3 at 4.)
parties convened for Defendant's deposition of Plaintiff
on January 25, 2017. (Docket no. 13 at 1.) The dispute
concerning the deposition arose when counsel for Defendant
began questioning Plaintiff about medical records; in
particular, a record from one of the decedent's treating
physicians, Dr. David Lang. (Docket no. 20-5.) Dr. Lang wrote
that he received the decedent's history from Plaintiff,
and that the decedent's “social history, ”
includes “[e]ight beers per day.” (Id.
at 2.) The following series of exchanges among Defense
counsel (Mr. Asmar), Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's counsel
(Ms. Trikes) occurred:
Q. And [the document] also says “Eight beers per
day.” Do you see that?
Q. Okay. And this document says that this history is taken
Ms. Trikes [Plaintiff's counsel]: I'm going to object
to form and foundation.
Q. You can answer my question.
A. I see that, yes.
Q. Okay. I had asked you whether you told someone at the
hospital that your husband drank eight beers a day, and you
said no; right?
A. I don't recall saying that.
Q. Okay. So now you don't recall saying that. That's
different than a no.
A. No, I did not say that. I don't recall saying that.
Q. “I did not say that” and “I don't
recall saying that” are two different things. Okay.
Somebody at the hospital, which appears to be Dr. Lang, wrote
down that you told him that your husband drank eight beers
per day; correct?
Ms. Trikes: I'm objecting to that; form and foundation.
And that is not a correct statement. She cannot agree that
David Lang wrote that down.
Mr. Asmar [Defendant's counsel]: I understand your
objection. Speaking objections- Ms. Trikes: I will not have
her answer that question. It's a trick question. You have
no proof that it was David Lang who wrote that down.
Mr. Asmar: I'll rephrase the question for her, then.
Q. David Lang-it says “Dictating: David Lang.”
Q. See that on top? Okay. Flip to the next page. Do you see
the top there, “Authenticated by David Lang, D.O., on