See Mata v. STA Mgmt., LLC¸ No. 19-11662, 2021 WL 141248, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2021) (citation omitted); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 & n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (quoting Rockwell Med., Inc. v. Richmond Bros., Inc., 2017 WL 1361129, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2017)). On balance, the proportionality factors weigh in favor of compelling the discovery.
(ECF No. 361 at 12-14.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Defendants cite to an out-of-circuit district court decision, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700 (E.D. Mich.), aff'd, No. 14-CV-11700, 2017 WL 3116261 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2017), to argue that a close relationship between RICO defendants forecloses the need for the disclosure of financial records. (ECF No. 345 at 10.)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters, and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”) (internal citation omitted).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters, and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters, and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”) (internal citation omitted).
The scope, however, may be “limited by court order,” id., meaning it is within the sound discretion of the Court. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters . . . and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”)
“[A] court has broad discretion over discovery matters, Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999), and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017). EES Coke explains that it chose to respond to all the interrogatories in the second set rather than bringing a discovery dispute over numerosity to the Court.
.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters, Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999), and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”). Discovery is more liberal than even the trial setting, as Rule 26(b) allows discovery of information that “need not be admissible in evidence.”
The scope, however, may be “limited by court order,” id., meaning it is within the sound discretion of the Court. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F.Supp.3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters . . . and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”