ORDER

R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery [Doc. #78], in which they seek an order compelling Defendant to respond to their Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories.

There are several reasons why this motion should be denied. First, discovery closed on October 13, 2017, and Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the present motion on December 19, 2017, making it subject to denial as being grossly untimely. See Suntrust Bank v. Blue Water Fiber, L.P., 210, F.R.D. 196 (E.D. Mich. 2001); AVKO Educational Research Foundation v. Morrow, 2013 WL 1395824 at *11 (E.D. Mich. 2013). Also, Plaintiffs failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1, which requires a certification that the moving party held a conference and/or sought concurrence of the opposing party.

Finally, the motion fails on its merits. As to the document requests, that issue was resolved by stipulation filed on September 12, 2017 [Doc. #54], which withdrew Plaintiffs' previous motion to compel.1 As to the interrogatories, I have reviewed the Defendant's responses, attached to its response as Exhibit 5 [Doc. #80], and, while Defendant interposed objections to each disputed interrogatory, nonetheless provided responsive answers subject to those objections.2

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to compel [Doc. #78] is DENIED.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B), Plaintiffs must show cause in writing, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, why they should not pay the Defendant its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing this motion, including attorney's fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.