Stockwell v. Hamilton
Stockwell v. Hamilton
2020 WL 219247 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
January 14, 2020
Grand, David R., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied the first motion and granted in part and denied in part the second motion, ordering Plaintiffs to conduct a search for all ESI responsive to Hamilton's discovery requests that are unique to Plaintiff Stockwell. The remainder of the motion was denied without prejudice, and any future motion to compel ESI must be filed after the parties engage in a meaningful meet-and-confer process.
DOUGLAS W. STOCKWELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN M. HAMILTON, et al., Defendants
v.
JOHN M. HAMILTON, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 15-11609
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Filed January 14, 2020
Grand, David R., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HAMILTON’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 183) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT HAMILTON’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 187)
*1 Before the Court are two pending motions: (1) Defendant John Hamilton’s (“Hamilton”) Combined Motion for Discovery Sanctionsand Reasonable Expenses Including Attorneys’ Fees and for Permission to Notice the Deposition of John Orecchio; and (2) Hamilton’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Produce ESI or, in the Alternative, Sanction Plaintiffs for their Failure to Preserve ESI. (ECF Nos. 183, 187). Both motions have been fully briefed and were referred to the undersigned for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (ECF Nos. 184, 188, 198, 203, 205, 207). Oral argument was held on January 13, 2020.
For the following reasons, and those set forth more fully on the record:
• Hamilton’s Combined Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Reasonable Expenses Including Attorneys’ Fees and for Permission to Notice the Deposition of John Orecchio (ECF No. 183) is DENIED. The circumstances behind Plaintiffs’ counsel’s decision to cancel the deposition are not accurately reflected in Hamilton’s motion. Moreover, those circumstances make counsel’s decision understandable and not sanctionable. Additionally, even if the Court were to conclude it had the discretion to award some sanction, it would not do so here in light of the highly unreasonable amount of fees and costs requested. While the Court is well-practiced at reviewing attorney fee petitions to ensure that any ordered fees and costs are “reasonable,” where the chaff exceeds the wheat many times over, the Court will not engage in that exercise. See Thomas v. Bannum Place of Saginaw, No. 4:17-CV-13492, 2019 WL 4597483, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23, 2019).
• Hamilton’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Produce ESI or, in the Alternative, Sanction Plaintiffs for their Failure to Preserve ESI (ECF No. 187) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to conduct a search for all electronically stored information (“ESI”) responsive to those of Hamilton’s discovery requests that are unique to Plaintiff Stockwell, including, but not limited to, searching those e-mail addresses identified by Hamilton as having been used by Plaintiff Stockwell (hunterforeverdo10@hotmail.com and a324memberswhocare@hotmail.com). If such a search cannot be conducted for some reason, counsel for Stockwell shall provide a signed certification explaining same. The remainder of Hamilton’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and any future motion to compel ESI from Plaintiffs shall only be filed after the partiesengage in a meaningful meet-and-confer process to identify any specific categories of ESI that Hamilton believes he does not already possess.
IT IS SO ORDERED.