Fortech S.R.L. v. Motor Consultants of America, Inc. ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FORTECH S.R.L., Case No. 22-11648 Plaintiff, v. George Caram Steeh United States District Judge MOTOR CONSULTANTS OF AMERICA, INC., Curtis Ivy, Jr. Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge ____________________________/ ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff Fortech S.R.L filed this case on July 18, 2022. (ECF No. 1). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial non-dispositive matters. (ECF No. 19). This case is presently before the Court regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 20). As the motion is unopposed and the relief requested appears reasonable, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is GRANTED as follows: 1. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests are overruled; 2. Within 14 days of this Order, Defendant must: A. Produce all documents responsive to Fortech’s requests for production Nos. 1-25, or to confirm in writing that it does not have documents responsive to these requests; B. Produce its documents as they are kept in their ordinary course or organize and label its production to correspond to each of Fortech’s document requests; C. Produce the metadata associated with its document productions in accordance with general commercial e-discovery practice, as outlined in the technical information and specifications provided by Fortech’s counsel; D. Substantively answer Fortech’s interrogatories Nos. 3-18, in full and including all subparts; E. Provide a comprehensive privilege log covering any objections or withholding based on attorney-client privilege or work product exemptions; 3. Because Defendant did not establish that its failure to provide the requested information or documents was substantially justified, it shall pay Fortech’s expenses incurred in making its motion to compel, including costs and attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A); Youn v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409, 421 (6th Cir. 2003). Within 21 days of this Order, if the parties have not come to an agreement on costs, Plaintiff shall submit a Bill of Costs related to its motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2. Date: May 16, 2023. s/Curtis Ivy, Jr. Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge