Kimberly Powell-Hatcher v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Summary

This order directs the parties in Powell-Hatcher v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP to meet and confer regarding a motion to compel discovery responses and to file a joint list of unresolved issues. It sets a January 21, 2026 hearing and provides guidance concerning proportionality, specificity of discovery requests and objections, privilege logs, and sanctions. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford of the Eastern District of Michigan on December 23, 2025.

Holdings

1. The parties must meet and confer in good faith, in person or by video as required by E.D. Mich. LR 37.1, and must file a joint list identifying each unresolved discovery request, the original response or objection, and each party's arguments concerning relevance and proportionality before the hearing on the motion to compel.
2. Discovery requests must describe requested documents with reasonable particularity, and objections to interrogatories and requests for production must be stated with specificity. A burdensomeness objection to a document request must be supported by affidavits, other evidence, or sufficient information for the court to make a common-sense judgment.
3. Because plaintiff waived objections by stipulating to provide full and complete discovery responses, the court would not consider objections plaintiff might attempt to raise at the January 21 hearing.
4. If plaintiff violated the order requiring full and complete discovery responses, the court may impose non-dispositive sanctions or recommend dispositive sanctions.

Questions Presented

1. What procedures must the parties follow before the court resolves defendant's motion to compel discovery?
2. What standards govern the specificity, proportionality, and support required for discovery requests, responses, objections, and privilege claims?
3. What sanctions may be imposed or recommended if plaintiff violated the stipulated order requiring full and complete discovery responses?

Disposition

other