UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-11694 

 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 

MANNECORP, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [43] 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s Motion 

to Compel All Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production of Documents and Subsequent Requests to Complete and Clarify Answers to Written 

Discovery Requests, and to Provide Plaintiff With Initial Disclosures. (Docket no. 43.) 

Defendants Mannecorp, Inc., Thomas Moses, and Backstreet at Large, Inc. did not respond to 

Plaintiff’s Motion. A Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues regarding the Motion 

has been filed. (Docket no. 45.) With consent of the parties, this case has been referred to the 

undersigned for all proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 73. (Docket no. 26.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with oral 

argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), and is now ready to rule. 

I. BACKGROUND

 On April 28, 2014 and May 1, 2015, Plaintiff initiated three separate actions against 

Defendants, which have since been consolidated into the instant action before this Court, 

alleging that Defendants violated the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable Television 

2:14-cv-11694-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 362
2 

Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and that they committed common-law 

conversion through the unauthorized display of two televised professional-boxing championship 

fights. Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, 

and Requests to Admit Directed to All Defendants on June 4, 2015. (Docket no. 43 ¶ 1; docket 

no. 43-2.) After receiving two extensions of the time for response, Defendants responded to 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests on September 1, 2015. (Docket no. 43 ¶¶ 2, 4, 6-7; docket no. 43-

3.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion after unsuccessful attempts to resolve its concerns with 

Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests. (Docket no. 43 ¶¶ 11-15; docket no. 43-4; 

docket no. 43-5.) 

In its Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ responses to its discovery requests are 

“non-responsive, incomplete or, in some cases, evasive” and that Defendants did not produce 

documents in response or object to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. (Docket 

no. 43 ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants have not yet produced a witness list in 

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. ¶ 10.) As relief, Plaintiff 

requests that the Court enter an order (1) compelling Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatory nos. 1-8 and 20 and provide complete answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory nos. 9 

and 22-24; (2) compelling Defendants to fully and completely respond or object to Plaintiff’s 

Requests for Production of Documents; (3) compelling Defendants to make initial disclosures 

pursuant to Rule 26(a); and (4) awarding Plaintiff the expenses and attorney fees it incurred in 

bringing the instant Motion. (Id. at 20.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s Motion, 

and according to the parties’ Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues, none of the 

issues presented by Plaintiff has been resolved. (See docket no. 45.) 

2:14-cv-11694-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 363
3 

II. GOVERNING LAW

 The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite 

broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may obtain 

discovery on any matter that is not privileged, is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and is 

proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant evidence” is “evidence 

having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). But the scope of discovery is not unlimited. “District courts have 

discretion to limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would 

prove unduly burdensome to produce.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 

F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007). 

 Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, 

provide to the other parties “the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each 

individual likely to have discoverable information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Failure to 

comply with Rule 26(a) is subject to sanctions under Rule 37(a)(3)(A). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(A). Rules 33 and 34 allow a party to serve interrogatories and requests for production 

of documents on an opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34. A party receiving these types of 

discovery requests has thirty days to respond with answers or objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). If the party receiving discovery requests under Rules 33 or 34 fails to 

respond properly, Rule 37 provides the party who sent the discovery the means to file a motion 

to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). If a court grants a Rule 37 motion to compel, or if 

discovery is received after a Rule 37 motion is filed, then the court must award reasonable 

2:14-cv-11694-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 364
4 

expenses and attorney’s fees to the successful party, unless the successful party did not confer in 

good faith before the motion, the opposing party’s position was substantially justified, or other 

circumstances would make an award unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 

III. ANALYSIS

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to provide initial disclosures under Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(i), provide full and complete responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, or respond to 

Plaintiff’s requests for production within the allotted time period, and Defendants have not 

shown otherwise. By not filing any proper objections during the response period, Defendants 

have waived any objections to the discovery. Because Defendants also did not respond to 

Plaintiff’s Motion, the Motion is unopposed. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel. Defendants have not demonstrated that their nondisclosure was substantially justified 

or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust; accordingly, Rule 37 sanctions 

are appropriate in this case, and the Court will order Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable 

expenses and attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). The Court will also order Plaintiff to 

submit a Bill of Costs. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [43] is GRANTED 

as follows: 

a. Defendants are ordered to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatory nos. 1-9, 20, and 22-24, without objection, within thirty (30) days of 

this Opinion and Order; 

b. Defendants are ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of 

Documents, without objection, within thirty (30) days of this Opinion and Order; 

2:14-cv-11694-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 365
5 

c. Defendants are ordered to make initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(i) within thirty (30) days of this Opinion and Order; and 

d. Defendants are ordered to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred 

by Plaintiff as a result of bringing the instant Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to submit to 

the Court a Bill of Costs itemizing the same within thirty (30) days of this Opinion 

and Order, at which time the Court will determine the amount of costs and fees for 

which Defendants are liable. 

Defendants’ failure to comply with this Order may result in additional sanctions. 

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). 

Dated: April 21, 2016 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon counsel of record on this date. 

Dated: April 21, 2016 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager

2:14-cv-11694-MKM Doc # 47 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 366