Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KEATHLEY v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, 15-cv-11888. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160701f12 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL [8] AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL [16] MONA K. MAJZOUB , Magistrate Judge . On June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Timika Keathley's first and second Motions to Compel [8][16], at which the Court addressed the parties' unresolved issues as stated in their March 7, 2016 and April 1, 2016 Joint Statements of Resolved and Unresolved Issue
More

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL [8] AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL [16]

On June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff Timika Keathley's first and second Motions to Compel [8][16], at which the Court addressed the parties' unresolved issues as stated in their March 7, 2016 and April 1, 2016 Joint Statements of Resolved and Unresolved Issues [20][25]. Also at the hearing, Defendant indicated its intent to withdraw its Motion to Extend the Deadline for Fact Discovery [21]. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel [8] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel, with regard to the unresolved issue of Defendant's alleged failure to properly search for responsive documents, is GRANTED IN PART. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant will either file an affidavit stating that it has produced all responsive documents within its custody, possession, or control and that the production is complete, or augment its production to include all responsive documents. b. Plaintiff's first Motion to Compel, with regard to the second unresolved issue of Defendant's improper assertion of privilege, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's second Motion to Compel [16] with regard to the unresolved issue of Defendant's refusal to provide the home addresses of certain current and former employees is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant will confirm and provide verification to Plaintiff that it has control over and will produce Jason May, Brian Maxwell, Erik Hobson, and Jeanne Strick for trial. If Defendant does not have the requisite control over any of these witnesses, Defendant will provide the contact information for each such witness to Plaintiff.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer