UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MONICA HOPKINS, U.S. District Court No. 2:14-CV-13482 

 Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

ROMANO LAW, PLLC 

By: Eric Stempien (P58703) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

23880 Woodward Avenue 

Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069 

(248) 750-0270 

estempien@romanolawpllc.com 

KIENBAUM OPPERWALL HARDY 

 & PELTON, P.L.C. 

By: Elizabeth Hardy (P37426) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue 

Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@kohp.com 

tdavis@kohp.com 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE 

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND TO SUPPLEMENT RESPONSES 

TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.112 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13
2 

Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), by and through its attorneys, 

Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C., hereby moves pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(3) to compel Plaintiff Monica Hopkins to produce (1) responses to 

Ford’s First Set of Interrogatories; and (2) supplemental responses to Ford’s First 

Set of Requests for Production of Documents. 

In support of its motion, Ford states as follows: 

1. Ford served requests for production on December 12, 2014. Plaintiff 

did not respond to certain requests, and provided incomplete responses to other 

requests. Ford informed Plaintiff of these deficiencies, but other than a limited, 

incomplete supplementation on March 20, 2015, Plaintiff has not addressed them. 

2. Ford served interrogatories upon Plaintiff on February 13, 2015, and 

responses were due March 18, 2015. Plaintiff has not responded to the 

interrogatories, despite Ford’s requests to address the deficiency. 

3. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Court should 

compel Plaintiff to supplement her responses to Ford’s requests for production and 

respond to Ford’s interrogatories. The Court should likewise award the costs and 

fees associated with the filing of this motion. 

4. Ford has attempted to resolve this matter without the Court’s 

intervention, including sending Plaintiff’s counsel written notice that Ford would 

file a motion to compel if no responses were forthcoming. Despite Ford’s attempts 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.113 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 13
3 

to consult with Plaintiff regarding the deficient productions, Plaintiff’s counsel has 

not responded as of the filing of this motion. Ford has thus been unable to conduct 

a conference, necessitating the filing of this motion. 

WHEREFORE, Ford requests that the Court grant the motion to compel and 

award costs and fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). 

KIENBAUM OPPERWALL 

 HARDY & PELTON, P.L.C. 

By: /s/Thomas J. Davis 

 Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@kohp.com

Dated: March 31, 2015 tdavis@kohp.com

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.114 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MONICA HOPKINS, U.S. District Court No. 2:14-CV-13482 

 Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

ROMANO LAW, PLLC 

By: Eric Stempien (P58703) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

23880 Woodward Avenue 

Pleasant Ridge, MI 48069 

(248) 750-0270 

estempien@romanolawpllc.com 

KIENBAUM OPPERWALL HARDY 

 & PELTON, P.L.C. 

By: Elizabeth Hardy (P37426) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue 

Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@kohp.com 

tdavis@kohp.com 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

AMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF 

TO PRODUCE INTERROGATORY RESPONSES AND TO SUPPLEMENT 

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.115 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 13
-iCONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 

 1. Should the Court grant Ford’s motion to compel responses to its 

interrogatories and requests for production? 

2. Should the Court award Ford its costs and fees incurred in filing this 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)? 

 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.116 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 13
-iiCONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.117 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 13
-iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................. i

CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ............................ ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 4

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.118 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 13
-ivTABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

RULES 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ........................................................................... 3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 ........................................................................... 3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 ........................................................................... 3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 .......................................................................3, 4

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.119 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 13
-1- 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Monica Hopkins has failed to comply with basic discovery 

obligations in this matter, including her obligation to respond to interrogatories and 

to timely supplement discovery responses. Defendant Ford Motor Company 

(“Ford”) thus moves to compel responses. 

BACKGROUND 

 This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations of failure to accommodate and 

disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ford served 

requests for production on Plaintiff in December 2014. Among other things, Ford 

requested Plaintiff’s medical records—including signed, notarized privacy waivers 

so that Ford could receive complete records directly from the providers. (Ex. A ¶ 

16.) Ford also requested information related to damages and mitigation of 

damages—including W-2 tax forms and records related to Plaintiff’s attempts to 

obtain employment after she left Ford. (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20.) 

 Plaintiff did not initially provide any tax or job-search records. (See Ex. B, 

Pl’s Dep. at 41-44.) She provided some medical records and notarized waivers; 

however, Ford later learned that these responses were not complete. For instance, 

Plaintiff has received treatment from at least three additional medical providers 

around the time of her employment with Ford (where she alleges she had an onthe-job injury), yet she has not provided the medical records and notarized releases 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.120 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 13
-2- 

for those providers. (See Ex. B at 116, 128; Ex. C.) Plaintiff also stated at her 

deposition that she received instructions from Ford’s in-house medical department 

regarding back pain, and that she would look for these documents (Ex. B at 146-

47); however, no such documents were provided in discovery. Starting February 

13, 2015, Ford requested that Plaintiff supplement her RFP responses; however, 

apart from a limited production of joint tax returns that do not break out Plaintiff’s 

individual income, Plaintiff has not provided the medical records, releases, or tax 

information requested.1

 (See Ex. D.) 

 On February 13, 2015, Ford served Plaintiff with its First Set of 

Interrogatories.2

 (Ex. E.) The responses were due March 18, 2015, but Plaintiff did 

not provide responses. Ford notified Plaintiff of this deficiency on March 20, 2015 

and again on March 25, 2015; however, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to 

Ford’s inquiries regarding the missing interrogatory responses. (See Ex. D.) 

 On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Ford sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel 

outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s document production and the failure to 

respond to its interrogatory requests. (See id.) Ford indicated that if it did not have 

 

1

 Counsel stated that Plaintiff did not have medical records but would sign the 

medical releases (Ex. D); however, no such releases have been provided to Ford. 

2

 Among other things, the interrogatory asked Plaintiff to identify all prospective 

employers with whom she sought employment (Ex. E ¶ 6.) As noted, Plaintiff’s 

RFPs also sought such information, but Plaintiff had not even searched for 

responsive documents. (Ex. A; Ex. B at 41.) 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.121 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 13
-3- 

the discovery responses by Friday, March 27, 2015, that it would file a motion to 

compel. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded. 

ARGUMENT 

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34, discovery responses must be provided 

within 30 days of a request, and Rule 26(e) provides that a party has an ongoing 

duty to supplement discovery responses that are incomplete or incorrect. Rule 

37(a)(3)(B) permits a party to move for an order compelling a discovery response 

under Rule 33 or Rule 34, and Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides for costs and fees to the 

moving party if a motion to compel is granted or discovery is provided in response 

to a motion to compel. 

The Court should compel Plaintiff to respond to Ford’s interrogatories and 

requests for supplementation of her document requests. Ford has made several 

good-faith efforts to obtain the discovery without the Court’s assistance, yet 

Plaintiff has failed to timely provide the discovery responses. Specifically, the 

following responses should be compelled: 

1. Responses to all of Ford’s interrogatories—and the documents 

related to job searches that are to be discussed in the interrogatories 

and that were requested in RFP 20. 

2. A signed, notarized HIPAA waiver directed to Dr. Jeff Pierce. 

3. A signed, notarized HIPAA waiver directed to Plaintiff’s 

chiropractor. 

4. A signed, notarized HIPAA waiver directed to General Motors. 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.122 Filed 03/31/15 Page 11 of 13
-4- 

5. Instruction sheets or other documentation provided by Ford medical 

regarding back exercises or other back treatment that Plaintiff 

identified at her deposition. 

The Court should also grant Ford its costs and fees incurred as a result of 

having to file this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 

CONCLUSION 

The Court should grant Ford’s Motion to Compel and award costs and fees 

as described above. 

Respectfully submitted, 

KIENBAUM OPPERWALL 

 HARDY & PELTON, P.L.C. 

By: /s/Thomas J. Davis 

 Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

 Thomas J. Davis (P78626) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@kohp.com

Dated: March 31, 2015 tdavis@kohp.com

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.123 Filed 03/31/15 Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on March 31, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to counsel of record and I hereby certify that I have 

caused to be served via U.S. mail the foregoing document to the following nonECF participants: 

 (no manual recipients) 

 /s/Thomas J. Davis 

 280 North Old Woodward Avenue 

 Suite 400 

 Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

 (248) 645-0000 

 Email: tdavis@kohp.com 

 (P78626) 

Case 2:14-cv-13482-VAR-DRG ECF No. 14, PageID.124 Filed 03/31/15 Page 13 of 13