United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
G. Edmunds Judge.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE ANSWERS TO
DISCOVERY (DE 14)
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
originally filed this lawsuit in state court on July 27, 2017
concerning an alleged February 17, 2016 water loss at 1752
Alexander Drive, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. (Id.
¶¶ 1, 6.) Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and
seeks an appraisal under Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2833.
(Id. ¶¶ 11-20.)
removed the case to this Court on August 28, 2017 and has
since filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and jury
demand. (DEs 1, 2.) Pursuant to the Court's April 17,
2018 order granting first extension of dates, discovery
concludes on July 2, 2018 and dispositive motions are to be
filed on or before August 1, 2018. (DE 13.)
before the Court is Defendant's April 26, 2018 motion to
compel more complete answers to discovery, regarding which a
response and a reply have been filed. (DEs 14, 17 & 18.)
At issue in this motion are Plaintiffs responses to
Defendant's January 17, 2018 interrogatories and requests
to produce, as well as Defendant's March 19, 2018 request
for supplementation and Plaintiffs March 28, 2018 letter.
Edmunds referred this motion to me for hearing and
determination. A hearing was noticed, and, on June 14, 2018,
Attorneys Douglas G. McCray and Nathan G. Peplinski appeared
in my courtroom. Having considered the motion papers and the
oral argument from counsel for the parties, the Court issued
its ruling from the bench.
for the reasons stated on the record, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference, Defendant's motion to
compel (DE 14) as narrowed by the pre-hearing joint list of
unresolved issues (DE 21) is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART as follows:
. Interrogatory No. 3: Plaintiff shall
supplement its answer under oath to explain how the $68,
519.41 figure is calculated and which documents support the
calculation. (See DE 14-2 at 5, DE 14-5 at 4, DE
17-18, and DE 17-19.)
. Interrogatory No. 4: Plaintiff shall
supplement its answer under oath, with a focus on:
(a) spelling out the details of the
“sit down” between Bill Roberts and the Insured
to “hammer out the numbers” and what conclusion
emerged from that effort; and, (b) any other
consequential damages, including details of what they are or
an explanation for why such details are not available.
(See DE 14-2 at 5-6, DE 14-5 at 4.)
. Interrogatory No. 5: Plaintiffs objection
as to form is sustained, and no supplementation is required.
Notwithstanding its objection, Plaintiff has adequately
answered, as supplemented within Plaintiff's
counsel's March 28, 2018 letter, which is part of the
record in this case. (See DE 14-2 at 6-7, DE 14-5 at
. Interrogatory No. 12: Plaintiffs answer is
adequate. (See DE 14-2 at 11-12; see also
DE 14-5 at 6.)
. Request to Produce No. 1: Plaintiff's
response, as supplemented by the March 28, 2018 letter, is
adequate. (See DE 14-3 at 2-3, DE 14-5 at 6.)
. Request to Produce No. 3: Plaintiff shall
supplement its response by including the information set
forth in pages 8-9 of its response brief in a formal response
and provide anything else needed to assure responsiveness.
(See DE 14-3 at 4, DE 14-5 at 6, DE 17 at 14-15.)
. Request to Produce No. 4: Plaintiff's
response is adequate, as given initially, as further
explained in the March 28, 2018 supplemental letter response,
and as referred to in the interrogatory ...