United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JOHANA C. ARUCAN, Plaintiff,
CAMBRIDGE EAST HEALTHCARE/SAVA SENIORCARE LLC, et al, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson, Judge
Arucan has sued her employer for discrimination and wrongful
termination and two police officers who were called to remove
her from the premises for constitutional violations. (R. 5.)
The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Dawkins Davis
for all pretrial matters. (R. 10.)
before the Court are Arucan's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order denying her motion to compel
discovery. (R. 67.) For the reasons set forth below, the
Court overrules Arucan's objections and affirms the
Magistrate Judge's order resolved a nondispositive
discovery dispute. See Baker v. Peterson, 67 F.
App'x 308, 311 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a), the Court will uphold the order unless it is
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.
2001). A ruling is “‘clearly erroneous' when,
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court. . . is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Hagaman v.
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 958 F.2d 684,
690 (6th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). A legal conclusion is
“contrary to law ‘when it fails to apply
misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure.'” Ford Motor Co. v. United
States, No. 08-12960, 2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 9, 2009) (citation omitted). Relatedly, in deciding
discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to the
same broad discretion as a district judge and her order is
overruled only upon a finding of an abuse of discretion.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical
Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 703 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
report and recommendation adopted No. 14-11700, 2017
WL 3116261 (July 21, 2017); Bill Call Ford, Inc. v. Ford
Motor Co., 48 F.3d 201, 209 (6th Cir. 1995). An abuse of
discretion exists when the court applies the wrong legal
standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on
clearly erroneous findings of fact. First Tech. Safety
Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir. 1993).
Magistrate Judge issued a Case Management Order which set a
discovery deadline of March 13, 2017. (R. 35.) Plaintiff
filed a motion to compel claiming the Defendants failed to
answer her interrogatories and document requests. (R. 57.)
The relevant Defendants responded that the discovery requests
were not served until March 21, 2017-eight days after the
close of discovery. (R. 58-3, PID 622.) Plaintiff provided no
evidence to the contrary. Thus, the Magistrate Judge denied
the motion to compel. (R. 66.)
is nothing clearly erroneous about this ruling. First,
untimely discovery may be denied. See, e.g., Francis v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 07-14921, 2008 WL 5212171
(E.D. Mich., Dec. 12, 2008); Logan v. Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co., No. 10-3-KSF, 2011 WL 5245354, *2 (E.D. Ky.
Nov. 2, 2011). Additionally, in her objection, Plaintiff
attaches interrogatory requests with a certificate of service
dated March 3, 2017 and a receipt purporting to show the
same. (R. 67, PID 698, 704.) But she failed to provide this
information to the Magistrate Judge. Indeed, the Magistrate
Judge specifically found that Plaintiff “provide[d] the
court with no evidence to support a claim that [the discovery
requests] were timely served.” (R. 66, PID 689-90.) In
the absence of any explanation for Plaintiff's failure to
provide this information earlier, the Court will deem the
argument waived. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d
895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000).
the Court considered Plaintiff's argument, it would not
change the result. Under the parties' scheduling order,
“All discovery must be initiated such that it is
completed by MARCH 13, 2017.” (R. 35, PID 136.) And the
Defendants are entitled to 30 days to respond to
interrogatories and document requests. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A); see also Scott v. Mem'l
Health Care Sys., Inc., No. 13-361, 2015 WL 12531987, at
*7 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2015). Thus, even assuming Plaintiff
served her discovery requests on March 3, 2017 instead of
March 21, 2017, they were still untimely. The Court will
overrule this objection.
not entirely clear, Arucan also appears to object to the
Magistrate Judge denying her motion to compel her employment
file. (See R. 67.) The Magistrate Judge did so
because Defendants ultimately produced the file. (R. 66, PID
688-90.) Thus, there was nothing for the Magistrate Judge to
compel and no abuse of discretion. The Court will overrule
reasons stated, the Magistrate ...