UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 On New Year’s Eve 2016, Ford’s counsel emailed the Court regarding the permissible 

scope of questioning during depositions to take place the first week of January 2017. Ford’s 

counsel asserted that opposing counsel would “not permit any questioning of the New World 

witnesses on any issue that is outside the two-patent scope of the ABPA case.” (The ABPA case 

refers to this case, Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, Case 

No. 15-10137 (E.D. Mich. filed January 14, 2015).) Apparently, counsel for New World, Auto 

Lighthouse, United Commerce, and ABPA (“New World/ABPA”) had told Ford’s counsel that 

“discovery should not go forward in the FGTL v. New World case [(15-10394)] until the Court 

has ruled on the stay issue,” that “[a]ll [Ford’s] deposition notices were captioned with the 

ABPA v. FGTL case,” and that “the categories [in Ford’s 30(b)(6) notices] exceed[ed] the scope 

of relevant discovery in the ABPA case.” 

 With no response from counsel for New World/ABPA forthcoming on January 1, 2017, 

the Court emailed the parties on January 2, 2017 as follows: 

Dear Counsel: 

AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS 

ASSOCIATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-10137 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk 

ORDER REGARDING JANUARY 2017 DEPOSITIONS 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 01/03/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 767
2 

When the Court reopens on Tuesday morning, it will enter an order identical in all 

material respects to the following: 

On December 16, 2016, the Court asked the parties for supplemental briefing on 

whether a stay may be appropriate in the Ford v. New World case as a result of 

the Supreme Court granting certiorari in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands 

Grp. LLC, No. 16-341, 2016 WL 4944616 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2016). No stay has yet 

been issued. Thus, the parties may and should continue to pursue discovery in 

both the Ford and the ABPA cases that are presently pending in this Court, 

including next week’s depositions that have been scheduled for some time. This 

discovery will be useful regardless of which venue ultimately ends up deciding 

these cases. The parties may place on the record at the beginning of the 

depositions any objections they have and the depositions will then be taken 

subject to these objections. The witnesses shall answer all questions subject to the 

narrow limitations in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., privilege). 

 Consistent with the Court’s January 2, 2017 email, the Court orders that the parties 

continue to pursue discovery in both the Ford and the ABPA cases that are presently pending in 

this Court, including this week’s depositions; that the parties place on the record at the beginning 

of the depositions any objections they have and the depositions will then be taken subject to 

these objections; and that the witnesses answer all questions subject to the narrow limitations in 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., privilege). 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: January 3, 2017 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 3, 2017. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 42 Filed 01/03/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 768