2:24-cv-12797
E.D. Mich.Aug 26, 2025Background
- Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories and requests for production.
- The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for hearing and determination.
- The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith, either in person or by video, regarding the outstanding discovery disputes.
- A joint list of unresolved discovery issues must be filed by September 24, 2025, detailing the requests, objections, and supporting arguments.
- A hearing on the motion to compel is scheduled for October 1, 2025; this may be canceled if the parties resolve the disputes.
- The order reminds parties of the standards for discovery requests, objections, and the necessity of privilege logs, and warns against boilerplate or conclusory objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Discovery Responses | Responses or objections are sufficient as given | Responses are incomplete or objections are baseless | Court orders parties to meet, confer, and provide detailed list |
| Breadth and Particularity of Requests | Requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome | Requests are specific and reasonable | Requests must be described with reasonable particularity |
| Validity of Objections | Objections are proper (e.g., relevance, burden) | Objections are boilerplate or unsupported | Objections require specificity and must be substantiated |
| Privilege Claims | May assert privilege as needed | Requests privilege log for any such claims | Privilege logs must be provided per Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (document requests asking for "everything under the sky" are inappropriate)
- Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733 (burdensome discovery objections must be supported by evidence)