Johannes Gerber v. Randall Blau, et al.

Gerber · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · January 8, 2026 · No. 20-12118

Summary

This order directs the parties to meet and confer regarding defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses. It requires the parties to file a joint list of unresolved discovery issues by January 27, 2026, and schedules a hearing for February 3, 2026. The order also provides guidance concerning proportionality, specificity of discovery requests and objections, privilege logs, and compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement.

Holdings

  1. The parties must meet and confer in person or by video in good faith as required by E.D. Mich. LR 37.1 and must file a compliant joint list of unresolved discovery issues before the hearing.
  2. Discovery requests must describe the requested documents with reasonable particularity, and objections must be stated specifically. A burden objection must be supported by affidavits, other evidence, or sufficient information to permit a common-sense assessment of the burden.
  3. A party claiming privilege in response to discovery must provide a privilege log as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the parties should be required to meet and confer in good faith before the court hears defendants' motion to compel.
  2. What information the parties must provide concerning each unresolved discovery request so that the court can evaluate relevance, proportionality, specificity, burden, objections, and privilege.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (13)

  • Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Great Lakes Grain, LLC, 988 F.3d 260, 273 (6th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Weidman v. Ford Motor Company, No. CV 18-12719, 2021 WL 2349400, at *3 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2021)(followed)
  • Cratty v. City of Wyandotte, 296 F. Supp. 3d 854, 858 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2017)(followed)
  • United States v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 16-CV-14050, 2018 WL 7351682, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2018)(followed)
  • Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 387-388 (2004)(followed)
  • Effyis, Inc. v. Kelly, No. 18-13391, 2020 WL 4915559, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2020)(followed)
  • In re Heparin Products Liab. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 399, 410-11 (N.D. Ohio 2011)(followed)
  • Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 743-44 (8th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Siser N. Am., Inc. v. Herika G. Inc., 325 F.R.D. 200, 209-10 (E.D. Mich. 2018)(followed)
  • Aprile Horse Transp., Inc. v. Prestige Delivery Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-15-GNS-LLK, 2015 WL 4068457, at *3 (W.D. Ky. July 2, 2015)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Michigan Southern Division