UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD BORST,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-14292-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

MS SELECT REALTY, LLC, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

GWENDOLYN GOTT, and

DEBORAH KESSLER,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(DOCKET NO. 20)

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Amended Motion to Compel Discovery

filed on October 23, 2009. (Docket no. 20). Plaintiff has responded. (Docket no. 23). The motion

has been referred to the undersigned for decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no.

21). The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e). The matter is now

ready for ruling.

This is an action for breach of fiduciary duties and conversion. Defendants assert that

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by his own breeches of fiduciary duties and bad faith conduct. (Docket

no. 5). Attached to Defendants’ Motion are Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents dated April 21, 2009. (Docket no. 20-3). The Motion asks for an order compelling the

Plaintiff to respond to combined Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents numbers

25 and 26. Interrogatory number 25 asks Plaintiff to state the nature of his relationship with Lloyd

-1-

2:08-cv-14292-RHC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 310
Blue and produce copies of all documents relating to his answer. Interrogatory number 26 asks

Plaintiff to identify income received in the past twenty-four months from business dealings between

Plaintiff and Lloyd Blue and produce copies of all documents relating to his answer. Plaintiff states

in his Response to Defendants’ Motion that he objected to the requests on the grounds of relevancy.

Interrogatories and Requests for Production numbers 25 and 26 are relevant to the

Defendants’ asserted defense and are therefore discoverable. However, the Court will not order the

Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests for the following reasons. Defendants’ Motion does

not state when and in what manner the discovery requests were served on Plaintiff and for that

reason has not shown that the discovery requests were properly served on the Plaintiff. Defendants

also failed to comply with E.D. Mich. LR 37.2 which requires the moving party to provide the Court

with a copy of the responses and objections to the disputed discovery requests. Finally, Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 33 states that no more than 25 written interrogatories may be served on a party

unless otherwise stipulated to or ordered by the court. Defendants served 29 Interrogatories on

Plaintiff. The record does not show that the Plaintiff stipulated to answer more than 25

Interrogatories and no order has been entered permitting the Defendants to serve more than 25

Interrogatories. In addition, the Motion does not indicate whether these are Defendants’ First Set

of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Although Plaintiff states that he only

answered relevant Interrogatories (docket no. 23), the Court is unable to determine the precise

number of Interrogatories the Plaintiff did answer.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery is

DENIED without prejudice.

-2-

2:08-cv-14292-RHC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 311
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of ten 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: November 23, 2009 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: November 23, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-3-

2:08-cv-14292-RHC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 312