UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TONITA THOMPSON,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-11281

Honorable Matthew F. Leitman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________/

ORDER REGARDING OCTOBER 15, 2015 HEARING DATE

Tonita Thompson brought this proposed class action suit against 

LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) and J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. 

(“JCC”; collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the Michigan 

Collection Practices Act, M.C.L. § 445.251 et seq. [R. 1]. On August 25, 

2015, Thompson filed a motion to compel discovery, which the Honorable 

Matthew F. Leitman referred to the undersigned for determination pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). [R. 18; R. 20]. On September 3, 2015, the 

Court held a telephonic status conference regarding the motion to compel, 

during which Thompson’s counsel, Curtis Warner, and Defendants’ 

counsel, Matthew Kostolnik, agreed to specific dates for, among other 

matters, supplemental briefing and a formal hearing. Later that date, the 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 175
2

Court entered an order summarizing the parties’ agreements, which stated 

in part:

Thompson must file a supplement to its motion to compel by 

October 8, 2015, outlining all of the remaining unresolved 

issues. Defendants must respond to Thompson’s filing by 

October 13, 2015, and the Court will hold a hearing on the 

unresolved discovery issues on October 15, 2015 at 10:00 

a.m. Unless the parties resolve all outstanding issues 

beforehand, both Mr. Warner and Mr. Kostolnik must attend the 

hearing in person.

[R. 23 at PgID 133]. 

Two weeks later, Defendants filed objections to the order, asking for 

the hearing to be rescheduled because Mr. Kostolnik has a jury trial in 

Fargo, North Dakota on October 15, 2015. [R. 24]. Thompson also 

objected to the portion of the order requiring that Mr. Kostolnik attend the 

hearing, and argued that one of Defendants’ other attorneys of record

should appear in his place on October 15. [R. 25]. Defendants responded 

to Thompson’s objection, contending that there was no discussion or 

agreement during the phone conference regarding an October 15 hearing 

date that required Mr. Kostolnik to appear in person. [R. 26]. Defendants 

again requested that the hearing date be rescheduled because Mr. 

Kostolnik is the attorney most familiar with the discovery issues. [Id.].

As a preliminary matter, the Court must clarify the previous order. In 

stating that Mr. Warner and Mr. Kostolnik must attend the hearing in 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 176
3

person, the Court merely meant that an attorney of record for each party 

must attend the hearing in person. Thus, the only real issue is whether Mr. 

Kostolnik’s unavailability on October 15 warrants rescheduling the date of 

the hearing, notwithstanding the availability of other defense counsel. The 

Court construes Defendants’ request to reschedule the hearing as a motion 

for reconsideration rather than an objection, and will deny that request.

Contrary to Defendants’ implication otherwise, the October 15 

hearing date was prominently discussed during the phone conference, and 

the briefing dates were set to accommodate that hearing date. Mr. 

Kostolnik did not complain during the phone conference that he would be 

unavailable; to the contrary, he agreed to an October 15 hearing date. 

Defendants’ expressed preference that Mr. Kostolnik be present at the 

hearing is an insufficient basis to reschedule the agreed-upon date. One of 

the three other defense attorneys of record can attend the hearing and 

more than adequately represent Defendants’ interests.

Accordingly, the Court will not reschedule the October 15, 2015 

hearing date. 

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: September 22, 2015

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 177
4

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, 

the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’ 

obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

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 September 22, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 28 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 178