United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”) objects
to the order (“order”) of Magistrate Judge David
R. Grand (Dkt. # 100) that this court deny Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel. (Dkt. # 84.) Plaintiff filed five
objections (Dkt. # 101). Non-party Gibbs Dies Casting
Corporation filed a Notice of Joinder/Concurrence in
Plaintiff's objections. (Dkt. # 105.) Defendant Chrysler
Group LLC, d/b/a, Fiat Chrysler Automotive
(“FCA”) filed a response (Dkt. # 104).
Non-parties Linamar USA Inc. and Admiral Tool &
Manufacturing Co. filed responses to Plaintiff's
objections (Dkt. # 103, 106.) The court will overrule
Plaintiff's objections, and deny Plaintiff's motion
for the reasons stated below and in the well-reasoned order
of Judge Grand.
Grand's order provides a detailed and accurate account of
the relevant background facts. The court will presume
familiarity with the order. (Dkt. # 100, Pg. ID 5217-20.)
filing of timely objections to a Magistrate Judge's order
regarding a nondispositive motion requires the court to
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
“Clear error will be found only when the reviewing
court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Max Trucking, LLC v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., 802 F.3d 793, 808 (6th Cir.
2015) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470
U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). The court may not reverse the finding
of the Magistrate Judge “simply because it is convinced
that it would have decided the case differently.”
Kerman v. C.I.R., 713 F.3d 849, 867 (6th Cir. 2013)
(citing Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573).
filing of objections provides the district court with the
opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the
parties and to correct any errors immediately, ”
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th
Cir. 1981), enabling the court “to focus attention on
those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the
parties' dispute, ” Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 147 (1985). As a result, “‘[o]nly those
specific objections to the magistrate's report made to
the district court will be preserved for appellate review;
making some objections but failing to raise others will not
preserve all the objections a party may have.'”
McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830,
837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n
of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
scope of discovery available to parties in a civil action is
outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. As a general
matter, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Even if a
party's discovery request is non-privileged and relevant,
it will not be granted if it constitutes discovery abuse. The
court must limit discovery in a number of circumstances.
Discovery is not permitted when “[it] is unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive [or] (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i-ii). Discovery is
further prohibited when its burden or expense outweighs its
likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount
in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of
the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii). When any of these circumstances arise, the
court must limit discovery “[o]n motion or on its
own.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Rule of Civil Procedure 16 pertaining to pleadings and
motions governs pretrial conferences, scheduling, and case
management. Pursuant to Rule 16, the court “must issue
a scheduling order, ” which must contain a “limit
[on] the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings,
complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b)(1) & (3). “A schedule may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's consent.”
Id. at 16(b)(4). “On motion or on its own, the
court may issue any just orders” if a party or its
attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.
Id. at 16(f)(1)(C).
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 concerns trials and subpoenas and
states in relevant part,
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or
tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the
party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written
objection . . .
If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the
serving party may move the court for the district where
compliance is required for an order compelling production or
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the
order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a
party nor a party's officer from significant expense
resulting from compliance.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(2)(B)(i).
court's Practice Guidelines state “Generally,
counsel will have about four months discovery for simple
cases, about six months for standard cases, and about nine
months for unusual or complex cases.” (See
Discovery (ii) Judge Cleland's Practice Guidelines.)
The original scheduling order for this case states,
“Extensions of court-supervised discovery are not
ordinarily granted in the absence of unusual
circumstances.” (Dkt. # 16, Pg. ID 66.) The amended
scheduling order for this case states, “The deadline
for completing (not simply scheduling court-supervised
discovery) is January 23, 2017.” (Dkt. # 65.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 concerns a party's failure to
make a disclosure or to cooperate in discovery. The Rule
allows a party to “move for an order compelling
disclosure or discovery” generally and also
specifically allows a party to compel disclosure by another
party who has failed ...