UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARGNI, INC.,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-11931

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI

MICHAEL WYLIE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND THE

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (DOCKET NO. 11)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of

Interrogatories and the Production of Documents filed on September 10, 2009. (Docket No. 11).

The Defendant is pro se and filed a pleading captioned “Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response/Reply to Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and the Production of Documents” on

September 25, 2009. (Docket No. 14). Defendant’s motion was filed within the time period set for

filing a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d); E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(d)(2)(B). Defendant’s motion states that he will respond to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests,

and is therefore responsive to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 14). Plaintiff filed a

timely Reply brief pursuant to LR 7.1(d)(2)(C) as if the Defendant had filed a response to the

Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the Court will treat Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time

as a timely response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

The Motion to Compel has been referred to the undersigned for decision pursuant to 28

-1-

2:09-cv-11931-MOB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 10/13/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 80
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. 12). The Court dispenses with oral argument on the Plaintiff’s

motion pursuant to LR 7.1(e). The matter is now ready for ruling.

Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests on Defendant on July

23, 2009. (Docket No. 11). Defendant’s responses were due on August 25, 2009. (Id.). The parties

agree that the Defendant has not responded to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Dockets Nos. 11,

14, 15). The Court has not been provided a copy of the discovery requests as required under LR

37.2. However, the Defendant has not objected to the requests at this time and indicates his intent

to respond. (Docket No. 14).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 11) is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant will serve his written responses to

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Document Requests on Plaintiff in accordance

with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, 33, and 34 within 10 days of the date of entry of this Order. Plaintiff’s request

for sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees is denied without prejudice in light of its failure to

comply with LR 37.2 in filing this motion.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions including prohibiting the

noncompliant party from supporting or opposing claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party

from introducing designated matters in evidence.

-2-

2:09-cv-11931-MOB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 10/13/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 81
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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: October 13, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Counsel of Record

on this date.

Dated: October 13, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-3-

2:09-cv-11931-MOB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 10/13/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 82