569 F.Supp.3d 626
E.D. Mich.2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (four developmentally disabled adults and a community advocacy org) challenge WCCMH’s 2015 CLS budgeting methodology, alleging violations of Medicaid, the ADA, Section 504, and Michigan law; the Sixth Circuit revived key claims.
- Plaintiffs served discovery (RFPs, interrogatories, and subpoenas) on WCCMH, Washtenaw County, and third‑party HMA seeking ESI (notably RFP 39) and recipient identities/documents.
- Parties negotiated ESI search terms; WCCMH ran test searches but refused to produce agreed results on deadline and declined to produce 80 sample emails from tests, citing limited staff/resources.
- WCCMH objected to producing recipient IDs/documents under HIPAA; plaintiffs secured a qualified protective order and sought enforcement.
- HMA asserted contract confidentiality to resist a subpoena; parties later resolved production subject to the Court’s ruling.
- Magistrate Judge Stafford ordered WCCMH/County to produce ESI (including the 80 test emails), answer Interrogatory 8 and RFP 73, required the County to certify wage‑survey responses (Rule 26(g)), overruled HMA’s confidentiality objection, and apportioned sanctions (WCCMH/County to pay half of plaintiffs’ reasonable fees for the motion to compel).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of ESI searches (RFP 39; 80 test emails) | Agreed search terms were relevant; need 80 sample emails to verify searches and address hits | WCCMH lacks staff/budget; ESI production is unduly burdensome; cannot set a production deadline | Court rejected burden excuse, ordered production under agreed terms, ordered delivery of 80 sample emails, set deadline, and required cooperation/testing of search terms |
| HIPAA/privacy re: Interrogatory 8 & RFP 73 (identities/docs of CLS recipients) | Seeks recipients who manage within budgets; production appropriate under qualified protective order | HIPAA bars disclosure; requests overly broad and burdensome | Court found HIPAA objection waived (no opposition to protective order), overruled HIPAA objection, and ordered WCCMH to answer/produce under the protective order |
| County wage/cost surveys subpoena | Plaintiffs seek surveys/analyses about wages, cost of living, direct care availability | County says none found yet, cannot certify nonexistence without exhaustive search; relies on proportionality | Court ordered County to conduct reasonable inquiry and certify under Rule 26(g); produce responsive surveys if in possession; warned against improper certifications |
| HMA confidentiality objection to subpoena | Subpoena seeks documents relevant to CLS program | HMA claims contract confidentiality bars production | Court held confidentiality agreements cannot defeat federal subpoenas and overruled HMA’s objection; ordered production per parties’ agreement |
| Sanctions for discovery misconduct | Plaintiffs sought fees under Rule 37(a)(5) for motion to compel | WCCMH argued partial success/other disputes resolved without full award | Court exercised discretion under Rule 37(a)(5)(C) and ordered WCCMH/County to reimburse plaintiffs half of fees/costs for the motion; provided billing limits and deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Waskul v. Washtenaw Cty. Cmty. Mental Health, 979 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2020) (district court’s dismissal reversed; core allegations about budget methodology and integration mandate upheld)
- William A. Gross Constr. Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 256 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (counsel must cooperate in designing/testing ESI search terms)
- DR Distributors, LLC v. 21st Century Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (counsel must be competent in ESI or retain experts; ethical duties to obtain ESI competence)
- In re Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug & 3‑Valve Engine Prod. Liab. Litig., 98 F. Supp. 3d 919 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (showing relevance for discovery is a low bar)
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (producing parties generally bear costs of producing active user emails)
- Cratty v. City of Wyandotte, 296 F. Supp. 3d 854 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (civil rights actions are high‑importance proportionality factor; burden objections require evidentiary support)
- Siser N. Am., Inc. v. Herika G. Inc., 325 F.R.D. 200 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (boilerplate objections are meaningless and may be deemed waived)
- Thomas v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, 421 F. Supp. 3d 494 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (apportionment of fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(C) where motion was partially resolved)