*1 Plaintiffs/judgment creditors New London Tobacco Market, Inc. and Fivemile Energy, LLC, have moved to compel full responses to post-judgment written discovery requests (D.E. 495) accompanied by a memorandum (D.E. 496) and exhibits (D.E. 498). Defendants/judgment creditors Kentucky Fuel Corporation and James C. Justice Companies, Inc., responded. D.E. 499. Plaintiffs replied (D.E. 500) with exhibits (D.E. 501). The Court then ordered Plaintiffs to clarify aspects of their request for relief. D.E. 502. Plaintiffs filed a supplement to their motion to compel. D.E. 503. The Court provided an opportunity for Defendants to respond to the supplement but ordered them not to revist arguments already made. D.E. 504. Defendants did not file a response to the supplement. Also pending is a motion to seal. D.E. 497. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted in part.

Plaintiffs seek an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 compelling Defendants to fully respond to ten interrogatories and 18 requests for production. D.E. 495 at 1. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ responses have been “grossly insufficient.” D.E. 496 at 7.

Defendants raise three primary objections to the discovery requests. D.E. 499 at 5-14. First, they argue that Plaintiffs’ request for documents “related to parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates” needs to be narrowly defined. D.E. 499 at 3, 5. Defendants point out that they are owned by “the Justice Family,” and that family owns “well over one hundred business entities, many of which have no relationship whatsoever.” Id. at 5. Defendants wish to define “affiliates” narrowly “to include only parents and subsidiaries” to avoid being in the “unenviable position” of a “burdensome production requirement.” Id. Defendants insist that many of the Justice-owned businesses are irrelevant to this case, so they need not pursue additional collection and production of materials. Id. at 5-6. However, the complexity of the ownership and relationship among these business entities is the reason that further discovery is proper. Plaintiffs are entitled to full discovery concerning the relationships among these entities, so this objection is overruled.

Second, Defendants argue that they “do not typically maintain paper or electronic copies of bank statements.” D.E. 499 at 6. They say they produced “last year's worth of statements for open accounts,” which constituted “all of the statements they believed were relevant for accounts which were in their possession or control.” Id. at 6-7. Defendants argue “Plaintiffs simply never considered the possibility that Defendants did not have copies of many of the historical bank statements.” Id. at 7. However, the question of whether bank statements are in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control does not hinge on whether Defendants ever possessed paper or electronic copies of those statements. As Plaintiffs point out, the law of this Circuit requires a party to produce all bank statements it “has the legal right to obtain” even if the party in fact has no copy. D.E. 500 at 6-7. “[T]o the extent that Defendant[s have] the authority to obtain past bank account statements ..., Defendant[s] must do so.” Margni, Inc. v. Wylie, No. 09-CV-11931, 2009 WL 10720703, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2009). This objection is overruled.

*2 Third, Defendants argue that producing documents that predate 2015 would be extremely burdensome, and such documents would not be relevant. D.E. 499 at 10. They argue they could not have known “they were likely facing a large verdict” until January 2017. Id. However, it is reasonable for Plaintiffs to demand documents dating back to 2010. This litigation was initiated in 2012, and the Complaint concerns activities beginning in 2005. As the Court has noted repeatedly, it was Defendants’ delay tactics that caused this litigation to drag on for nine years. Defendants cannot rely on the effects of their own misbehavior to excuse themselves from reasonably requested materials. This objection is also overruled.

Defendants are reminded that they have been ordered “to preserve all documents and information gathered in response to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, including documents and information that were not produced in response to those requests for any reason, so as to be available for later review by the Court as necessary.” D.E. 492. That obligation certainly applies to Defendants’ efforts in response to this Order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (D.E. 245) is GRANTED IN PART. On or before May 17, 2021, Defendants/judgment debtors Kentucky Fuel Corporation and James C. Justice Companies, Inc. SHALL FULLY RESPOND to Plaintiffs’ ten interrogatories and 18 requests for production.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

*3 The Court enters this Order on a non-dispositive matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Any objection to this Order SHALL be asserted in accordance with Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to make a timely objection consistent with the statute and rule may, and normally will, result in waiver of further appeal to or review by the District Court and Court of Appeals. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019).