Berryman v. Stephenson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied without prejudice Plaintiff Philip Berryman’s motion to compel more thorough interrogatory responses and for sanctions. The court held that the motion did not include a verbatim copy of the responses as required by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2 and did not identify specific inadequacies or their legal basis.

Holdings

1. A motion to compel that does not include a true copy of the challenged interrogatory responses, as required by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2, is insufficient for the court to determine whether the responses are inadequate.
2. Any renewed motion to compel must identify the specific inadequacies in the discovery responses and the legal basis for the requested relief; the court will not search through the responses on its own to identify possible deficiencies.
3. The request for sanctions was denied without prejudice along with the deficient motion to compel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's motion to compel complied with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2 when it failed to include a verbatim copy of the interrogatory responses.
2. Whether sanctions should be imposed in connection with the allegedly inadequate interrogatory responses.

Disposition

other