UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS BLACK, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-13616

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K.

MAJZOUB

 /

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S ORDER OF AUGUST 21, 2013 [234] AND MOOTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION REQUESTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DISSOLVE THE PARTIAL STAY OF THE AUGUST 21, 2013 ORDER [245]

Before the Court are Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order of

August 21, 2013 [234], Plaintiffs’ Response [239], and Defendants’ Reply [242] and

Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the Magistrate Judge Dissolve the Partial Stay of the

August 21, 2013 Order [245], Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to

Dissolve [246], and Plaintiffs’ Reply [247]. For the following reasons, Defendants’

Objections [234] are overruled and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve [245] is moot.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order [231] (“the Waiver

Order”) requiring the Defendant Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) to

1/5

2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Doc # 257 Filed 07/21/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 10607
produce to Plaintiffs by September 30, 2013 improperly withheld documents

responsive to discovery requests Plaintiff served in 2011. Part of the basis of the

Magistrate Judge’s privilege ruling was that the PBGC’s failure to produce a privilege

log for more than one year after the Court ordered the PBGC to comply with

Plaintiffs’ 2011 discovery requests waived its ability to assert any privileges or

protections as to those document requests.

On August 30, 2013, PBGC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Waiver

Order [232] and an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration of the

Court’s Waiver Order [233]. While those motions were pending, PBGC also filed

Objections to the Order [234]. In an Order [237], the Magistrate Judge denied the

PBGC’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Waiver Order, holding that PBGC had not

shown any palpable defect in the Waiver Order, and that PBGC had not demonstrated

that the Court or the Parties had been misled. The Magistrate Judge’s Order [237]

effectively mooted PGBC’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration of

the Court’s Waiver Order [233]. The Magistrate Judge partially stayed its previous

Order [231] until this Court considered Defendant’s Objections [234]. Because the

Court now addresses Defendant’s Objections [234], Plaintiffs’ MotionRequesting the

Magistrate Judge Dissolve the Partial Stay of the August 21, 2013 Order [245] and

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve [246] are hereby moot.

2/5

2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Doc # 257 Filed 07/21/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 10608
STANDARD OF REVIEW

If a litigant expresses an objection to a magistrate judge's ruling on a

nondispositive pretrial matter, the district court may “modify or set aside any part of

the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The

“clearly erroneous” standard does not permit a district court to reverse the magistrate

judge's finding simply because the issue would have been decided differently.

Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Rather, a “finding is

‘clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court

on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

ANALYSIS

Defendant first objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to account for the

parties’ understanding that PBGC would produce a privilege log at the conclusion of

its production. Defendant’s argument that they had an understanding regarding

discovery procedures is not compelling. Plaintiffs have filed multiple motions to

compel discovery and oppose this Defendant’s instant objection. Plaintiffs do not

agree that the parties had an understanding regarding PBGC’s privilege log. 

Accordingly, the Court is not left with a “definite and firm conviction” that the

Magistrate Judgemade amistake by compelling discovery in its previous Order[231].

3/5

2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Doc # 257 Filed 07/21/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 10609
Defendant next objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to account for the

practicalities involved in creating a privilege log for a document production of

massive scope in the case at hand. In fact, the Magistrate Judge directly and

thoroughly addressed this same argument in its previous Order [231]. See [231] at 7. 

Defendant has been under court order to since March 9, 2012 to respond to Plaintiffs’

discovery requests. The Court agrees with the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s

Order [231] that Defendant’s argument that the discovery requests are too large to

properly address is not compelling. 

Lastly, Defendant objects that the severity of the Magistrate Judge’s sanction

denying PBGC the right to assert privilege claimsisinappropriate in this case. PBGC

has been under court order since March 9, 2012 to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests and has only asserted boilerplate objections. Filing boilerplate objections to

discovery requests is tantamount to filing no objections at all. Cumberland Truck

Equip. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 2007 WL 4098727 (E.D. Mich. 2007)

(Mazjzoub). The Court strongly condemns the practice of asserting boilerplate

objections to every discovery request. Powerhouse Licensing, LLC v. CheckFree

Services Corp., 2013 WL 1209971 at *3 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (Drain, D.J.). “As a

general rule, failure to object to discovery requests within the thirty days provided by

Rules 33 and 34 ‘constitutes a waiver of any objection.’” Cozzens v. City of Lincoln

4/5

2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Doc # 257 Filed 07/21/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 10610
Park, 2009 WL 152138 at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (Hlucianuck, M.J.) (internal citation

omitted). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that PGBC has waived the right to claim

privilege here was based on well-settled law and the Court will not disturb it.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections [234] are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the

Magistrate Judge Dissolve the Partial Stay of the August 21, 2013 Order [245] is

MOOTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Motion to Dissolve [246] is MOOTED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: July 21, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

parties/counsel of record on July 21, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Assistant

5/5

2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Doc # 257 Filed 07/21/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 10611