UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 

SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC. 

 

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action No.: 15-11254 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

LOWERY CORPORATION, et al., 

 

 Defendants, 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

[ECF NOS. 149, 153, 157, 161, 162, 163, 174] 

The parties filed various motions to compel that were referred to this 

Court for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

The parties were ordered to meet and confer with expert advisor Scott 

Bailey. [ECF No. 168]. After meeting and conferring, the parties filed 

statements of resolved and unresolved issues. [ECF Nos. 195-204]. The 

Court held a hearing on November 30, 2017. For the reasons stated on the 

record, the Court orders as set forth below. 
2 

1. Compilation of Common Customer List 

KMBS must provide Bailey with a list of all of its customers at the time 

that the individual defendants ceased working for KMBS, and for the three 

years prior to the termination of individual defendants’ employment with 

KMBS. KMBS must identify the time periods during which it was doing 

business with those customers. 

AI and the individual defendants must provide a list to Bailey of all 

customers that they have done business with after the individual 

defendants left their employment with KMBS to the present, and must 

identify which of the individual defendants have done business with each 

listed customer. AI is primarily responsible for compiling this list, but each 

individual defendant must confirm the customers with which he or she has 

done business after leaving KMBS and augment AI’s list as necessary. 

These lists must be provided to Bailey by December 29, 2017. Bailey 

will then submit to each party a list of only those customers who are 

included on both KMBS’s and the defendants’ lists. The resulting list will be 

referred to as the common customer list below. 

2. Defendant Rob Bell’s motion to compel from KMBS [ECF No. 

149] 

Interrogatory 18: The motion to compel an answer to this 

interrogatory is denied because KMBS’s complaint includes a civil 
3 

conspiracy count and demands joint and several damages from all 

defendants, [ECF No. 9, PageID 116, 118], and because KMBS is 

still discovering the damage that it believes was caused by each 

individual defendant. 

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 

3. KMBS’s motion to compel from AI [ECF No. 153] 

Interrogatory 3: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this 

request. 

Interrogatory 4: AI agrees and is ordered to identify all yearly 

revenue paid to AI by each customer identified on the common 

customer list. An order on KMBS’s request for identification of 

weekly, monthly and quarterly revenues paid to AI by these 

customers is deferred until the common customer list has been 

compiled. 

RFP 38: AI must produce for inspection and/or imaging all electronic 

computing or storage devices—including but not limited to hard 

drives, flash drives, and cloud or internet-based storage devices—

that were issued by AI and used by any former employee of KMBS. 
4 

The definition of “former employee” is one who started working at AI 

one year or less after leaving his or her employment with KMBS, from 

January 1, 2011, to the present. KMBS must provide AI with a list 

“former employees” of which KMBS is aware, but AI must 

independently search for “former employees” in order to fulfill its 

obligations under this order. 

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 

4. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Matt Aron [ECF No. 

157] 

Interrogatory 12: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this 

request. 

Request for production of documents (RFP) 32: The order 

regarding this RFP is deferred until the common customer list is 

completed. 

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 
5 

5. KMBS’s motion to compel from Bell [ECF No. 161] 

Interrogatory 8: Bell must answer this interrogatory, except that the 

date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the present. 

Interrogatory 9: Bell must answer this interrogatory, except that the 

date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the present. 

Interrogatory 12: The common customer list is ordered in lieu of this 

request. 

Interrogatory 13: This interrogatory is too broadly written and must 

be redrafted to focus only on communication between Bell and AI that 

would be relevant to the claims or defenses. 

Interrogatory 14: Bell must identify any and all communications 

between him and AI referencing any Relevant KMBS Customer or 

potential employment with AI. The “Relevant KMBS Customers” are 

identified on Appendix A of Bailey’s meet and confer report.1

RFP 24: Bell must produce the documents requested in this RFP, 

except that the date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the 

present. 

 

1 This report was distributed to the Court and the parties. Bell filed the 

report with his statement of unresolved issues, but that exhibit was stricken 

because it included information that labeled as “Attorneys Eyes Only.” 
6 

RFP 30: Bell must produce the documents requested in this RFP, 

except that the date range is narrowed to July 14, 2013, to the 

present. 

RFP 32: An order on this RFP is deferred pending the compilation of 

the common customer list. 

RFP 33: This RFP is too broadly written and must be redrafted to 

focus only on communication between Bell and AI that would be 

relevant to the claims or defenses. 

RFP 34: Bell must produce documents, tangible items, and 

electronically stored information concerning, relied upon, or referred 

to in response to interrogatory 14, as narrowed above. 

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 

6. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Steve Hurt [ECF No. 

162] 

All issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 

7. KMBS’s motion to compel from Defendant Anna Stewart [ECF 

No. 163] 

All issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 
7 

8. AI’s motion to compel from KMBS [ECF No. 174]

Interrogatory 5: This interrogatory is too broadly written, and its 

motion to compel an answer is denied. 

RFP 6: This RFP was withdrawn at the hearing in light of the ruling 

on interrogatory 5. 

RFP 8: This RFP was withdrawn at the hearing in light of the ruling 

on interrogatory 5. 

All other issues were resolved prior to the hearing. 

*** 

 Except for the lists ordered in paragraph 1, any supplementation of 

discovery responses ordered above must completed by January 29, 2018. 

 The parties are warned that the filing of objections to a magistrate 

judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion does not stay the parties’ 

obligations under the order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2 (“When an objection is 

filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling 

remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the 

magistrate judge or a district judge.”). 
8 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Dated: December 1, 2017 

NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

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

provides a period of 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). 

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 December 1, 2017. 

 s/Marlena Williams 

 MARLENA WILLIAMS 

 Case Manager