TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]


Act 87: We Move (Again) to Compel Discovery

The judge "struck" our previous motion to compel discovery and suggested a manner in which we might resubmit it – and so, on June 25, 2002, that's what we did.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
 
Plaintiff, 
 Civil Action No. 01-72987
v.
 District Judge Zatkoff
WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Magistrate Judge Komives
 
Defendants. 


MOTION TO COMPEL PROMPT
DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and following the direction from the Court in its order dated June 13, 2002, defendant Henry Mishkoff moves the Court to provide complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 17, and to Document Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11. As provided by Local Rule 37.2, a copy of the requests and responses are submitted with this memorandum. Pursuant to the June 13 order, a separate motion concerning the scheduling of the case will be filed shortly, after undersign counsel consult with plaintiff's counsel concerning the scheduling issue. As provided by Local Rule 37.2, a copy of the requests and responses are submitted with this memorandum. In addition, the accompanying Index shows which arguments in the accompanying memorandum of law apply to which interrogatories and document requests.

Taubman should be required to provide answers to the foregoing interrogatories, and send all documents being produced to defendant's counsel, within fifteen days of the Court's order. Mishkoff should then be allowed forty-five days thereafter to take depositions, but only in pursuit of those answers.

As recited in Mishkoff's original motion on the subject of discovery concerning Count IV of the complaint, undersigned Mr. Levy sent Taubman's counsel a letter dated May 22, 2002, outlining his concerns and suggesting that counsel speak to try to resolve their differences. Later that day, counsel held a telephone conference, following which Taubman sent Mr. Levy a one-page document and slightly amended its response to three interrogatories. Mr. Levy explained why this response was inadequate in a further letter. Although there has been a supplementation with respect to Interrogatory No. 8 in response to Mishkoff's first motion to compel (as a result of which that issue is not raised in this motion to compel), counsel have been unable to resolve their differences, and it appears that this Court's intervention is required.

Respectfully submitted,

    Barbara Harvey (P25478)
    Suite 3060
    Penobscot Building
    645 Griswold
    Detroit, Michigan 48226
    (313) 963-3570

    Paul Alan Levy (DC Bar 946400)
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000

    Attorneys for Defendants

June 25, 2002


Next: Memorandum

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

©2002 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.