UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

HEMLOCK SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 15-11236

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

KYOCERA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY MOTION HEARING

AND REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a hearing will be held on 

June 23, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Bay City, Michigan. 

On motions for discovery that have been referred to the Magistrate Judge, counsel 

is required to meet and confer in accordance with E.D. Mich. LR 37.1 in an attempt to 

resolve, or at least narrow, the disputed issues. If the parties are able to successfully 

resolve the motion prior to oral argument, a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion should be 

electronically filed by the moving party. If unresolved issues remain, the parties shall 

prepare and file a Joint List of Unresolved Issues setting forth the issues that remain 

unresolved. The Joint List must certify that good faith efforts to resolve the matter(s) in 

controversy have been undertaken and specify the date(s), time(s), method/mode, and 

length of the events by which the meet-and-confer requirements were fulfilled. The Joint 

List shall not exceed ten pages, absent good cause, and should be structured as follows:

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 109 Filed 06/07/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 5230
Unresolved Issue No. 1: [Recite Issue]

• Movant’s Position:

• Respondent’s Position (including any proposal made to resolve movant’s 

request):

In addition, for each discovery request or dispute that remains at issue, counsel 

should assess how the following factors weigh either for or against the discovery:

1. Importance of the issues at stake in the action;

2. The amount in controversy;

3. The parties’ resources;

4. The importance of the discovery in resolving the issues;

5. Whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit;

6. Whether the discovery sought is cumulative or duplicative;

7. Whether the discovery sought can be obtained from a more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive source; and

8. Whether the party seeking discovery had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)

No exhibits or attachments shall be filed with the Joint List. The list should be efiled by the moving party at least five business days prior to the hearing.

The meet and confer requirement is not satisfied by an e-mail exchange, message 

left unanswered, or by mere compliance with LR 7.1. Where a conference has not been 

conducted, the moving party is to submit a written statement to the Court outlining all 

steps taken to conduct a conference with the opposing party. Any party refusing to 

appear for the conference or confer as the Court directs will be subject to costs and/or 

sanctions.

The parties should be aware that when the district judge has expressly referred all 

discovery disputes to the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge is available to conduct an 

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 109 Filed 06/07/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 5231
informal conference to resolve any pressing discovery disputes. This conference may be 

in person or by telephone. In cases where there are multiple discovery disputes or where 

many motions are filed, the Court may set the matter for a general discovery conference. 

This conference would be an in-person conference.

Finally, a party objecting to a request for production of documents as unduly 

burdensome must submit affidavits or other evidence to substantiate its objections. In re 

Heparin Prods. Liab. Litig.., 273 F.R.D. 399, 410-411 (N.D. Ohio 2011); Sallah v. 

Worldwide Clearing, LLC, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2012); Convertino v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 565 F. Supp. 2d 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 7, 2016 s/ patricia t. morris

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed this date 

through the Court’s CM/ECF system which delivers a copy to all counsel of record.

Date: June 7, 2016 By s/Kristen Krawczyk 

 Case Manager 

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 109 Filed 06/07/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 5232