|
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
|
