Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elite Health Centers, Inc., 2:16-cv-13040. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20190327788
Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING STATE FARM MUTUAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL HARRIET MORSE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO STATE FARM MUTUAL'S SUBPOENA (DEs 143, 144) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's (State Farm) motion to compel Harriet Morse to produce documents responsive to State Farm's subpoena (DEs 143, 144), non-party Harriet Morse's response (DE 186), State Farm's reply (DE 232), and the joint state
More

ORDER DENYING STATE FARM MUTUAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL HARRIET MORSE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO STATE FARM MUTUAL'S SUBPOENA (DEs 143, 144)

This matter is before the Court for consideration of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's (State Farm) motion to compel Harriet Morse to produce documents responsive to State Farm's subpoena (DEs 143, 144), non-party Harriet Morse's response (DE 186), State Farm's reply (DE 232), and the joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues (DE 242-1). All discovery matters have been referred to me for hearing and determination (DE 229), and a hearing was held on this motion on March 22, 2019, at which the Court entertained oral argument regarding the unresolved issues.

Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, and for all of the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are herein incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, State Farm's motion to compel Harriet Morse to produce documents responsive to State Farm's subpoena (DEs 143, 144) is DENIED, as the Court is satisfied that Harriet Morse has complied with the requests in the subpoena and that she has not withheld any documents on the basis of privilege, negating the need for a privilege log.

Finally, the Court declines to award costs because both sides' positions were substantially justified and required rulings from the Court, and because better communication from both sides could have obviated the need to go forward with this motion. As such, an award of costs would not be appropriate or just in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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