From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Otis Elevator Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 15, 2012
Case No. 11-cv-10200 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-cv-10200

02-15-2012

RAYMOND ANDERSON, RALPH BROWN, EARL LARDNER, JAMES LARDNER, ANTON WOLF and RICHARD WRIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a foreign Corporation, Defendant.


Hon. Paul D. Borman

Magistrate Judge Mark A Randon


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL AND

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE TEN DEPOSITION

LIMITATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30

This cause having come on to be heard by the Court on Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, the parties having filed briefs and oral argument having been heard, the motions are granted as follows:

Defendant shall answer Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for Production Number 1 and 3 by supplementing their response with the monthly reports referenced on the record, subject to redaction. Defendant shall produce a declaration indicating that there are no additional responsive documents beyond the production of the monthly reports.

Defendant shall produce a declaration or declarations from an employee or employees of Defendant who will state that inquiry has been made and that there are no facts which would indicate that UTC, or any of its employees, was in any way involved in the decisions to make a reduction in force vis a vis the Plaintiffs; and that a search was conducted and that there are no further responsive documents, other than what Defendant has previously produced, relative to Plaintiffs' Fourth Request for Production Number 7.

Defendant shall provide the date of birth and race of Howerter.

Defendants shall comply with the requirements of this order by March 7, 2012.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 is granted. Plaintiff may be allowed the deposition of John Mosella, Defendants' expert witness(es), and one additional deposition, if necessary.

_________________

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this date, February 15, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Melody R. Miles

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

Approved as to form only

By: _________________

Darcie R. Brault (P43864)

DIB, FAGAN AND BRAULT, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

25892 Woodward Avenue

Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910

(248) 542-6300

dbrault@dibandfagan.com

By: _________________

Lisa C. Walinske (P62136)

CARDELLI, LANFEAR & BUIKEMA, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant

322 W. Lincoln

Royal Oak, MI 48067

(248) 544-1100

lwalinske@cardellilaw.com


Summaries of

Anderson v. Otis Elevator Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 15, 2012
Case No. 11-cv-10200 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Anderson v. Otis Elevator Co.

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND ANDERSON, RALPH BROWN, EARL LARDNER, JAMES LARDNER, ANTON WOLF and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 15, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-cv-10200 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2012)