Party allowed to give objections after order to compel to produce documents?

[andresbaker]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

If:
* A defendant does not answer a request to produce
* Plaintiffs file a motion to compel, and at hearing defendant admits to having timely received the request to produce, just did not answer it, raising NO objections to the documents asked for orally or in writing
* The court issues an order compelling defendant to answer the request to produce
* Defendant THEN gives an "answer" objecting to producing the documents on the basis of relevancy and inadmissibility

Has defendant violated the court's order? Or, is this standard -- making Plaintiffs having to file a second motion to compel, to have the court rule on the objections?

... (This is a different case than my other post is regarding, there's no default in this case.)

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

If:
* A defendant does not answer a request to produce
* Plaintiffs file a motion to compel, and at hearing defendant admits to having timely received the request to produce, just did not answer it, raising NO objections to the documents asked for orally or in writing
* The court issues an order compelling defendant to answer the request to produce
* Defendant THEN gives an "answer" objecting to producing the documents on the basis of relevancy and inadmissibility

Has defendant violated the court's order? Or, is this standard -- making Plaintiffs having to file a second motion to compel, to have the court rule on the objections?

... (This is a different case than my other post is regarding, there's no default in this case.)

It may not be standard but it does NOT violate the court's order.

 

[Mark Maroon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan
If:
* A defendant does not answer a request to produce
* Plaintiffs file a motion to compel, and at hearing defendant admits to having timely received the request to produce, just did not answer it, raising NO objections to the documents asked for orally or in writing
* The court issues an order compelling defendant to answer the request to produce
* Defendant THEN gives an "answer" objecting to producing the documents on the basis of relevancy and inadmissibility
Has defendant violated the court's order? Or, is this standard -- making Plaintiffs having to file a second motion to compel, to have the court rule on the objections?
... (This is a different case than my other post is regarding, there's no default in this case.)

I am not in Michigan, but in my experience this happens reasonably often. Sometimes it is because the defendant's attorney cannot get their client to answer, other times it's a ploy by the defendant's attorney to bill their client for more hours, other times it's just done in the hope that you won't know what to do next or you won't want to bother doing it. I am sure there are other reasons as well. Any way. You filed a motion to compel an answer, the court ordered them to answer, they answered. If you do not believe that their answers are sufficient, then you have to file another motion to compel and specify why you think their answers and/or objections are insufficient and why you think they should be compelled to produce the information/documents requested.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

there's no default in this case.

There could be a default entered in this case if you move to strike the defendant's pleading under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) Rule 2.313(B)(92)(c).

The absence of apparent relevancy or materiality is not grounds for objecting to discovery requests if the requests can reasonably lead to information that is relevant and material.

Here it is rather obvious that the defendant is being obstructive by attempting to delay the proceedings. A tactic that the courts will not tolerate. See: Beck, et al. vs Cass County Road Commission, State of Michigan Court of Appeals Case No. 305246 (2012)