UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VITAMIN HEALTH, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-10071

Honorable Sean F. Cox

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

HARTFORD CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 

__________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [R. 11] AND 

SETTING MOTION HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2015 AT 10:00 A.M.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Vitamin Health, Inc.’s motion to compel 

[R. 11], which the Honorable Sean F. Cox referred for hearing and 

determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). [R. 12]. Pursuant to 

the local court rules, Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company has 

until October 14, 2015 to file its response. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The Court 

will hold a hearing on November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. regarding the 

motion.

Prior to the hearing, the parties must meet and confer as required 

by E.D. Mich. LR 37.1. This meeting must be in person, and the parties 

must make a good faith effort to narrow the areas of disagreement. LR 

37.1. Following the meeting, and by November 9, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel 

2:15-cv-10071-SFC-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 10/02/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 743
2

must file a confirmation that the meeting has taken place and a list of the 

requests it still believes Defendant has insufficiently answered. Defendant 

must file a response by November 11, 2015 that specifies any documents 

that it has provided in an effort to satisfy its discovery obligations and the 

bases for any continuing objections.

As the parties seek to narrow the areas of disagreement, they should 

keep in mind the following principles of law. A party objecting to a request 

for production of documents as overly broad or burdensome must submit 

affidavits or other evidence to substantiate its objections. In re Heparin 

Products Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 399, 410-11 (N.D. Ohio 2011). On the 

other hand, “Where a party explains the difficulties that compliance would 

create, the requesting party must be heedful, and not simply knee-jerk 

dismissive of those explanations.” Id. Although the scope of discovery of 

non-privileged matter is broad, a plaintiff may not “go fishing”; district courts 

have discretion to limit the scope of discovery when the requests are overly 

broad and unduly burdensome. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 

F.3d 448, 457 (6th Cir. 2008). “Likewise, a party who reasonably perceives 

a discovery request from the opposing party as too broad or too vague to 

comply with may object to the request and seek clarification from the 

opposing party and the district court.” Id. 

2:15-cv-10071-SFC-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 10/02/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 744
3

Of further note, to the extent that Defendant is claiming privilege, it 

must provide a privilege log as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). 

It may also seek a protective order. See E.D. Mich. LR 26.4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 2, 2015

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 October 2, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-10071-SFC-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 10/02/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 745