`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`__________________________________
`
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
` MASTER FILE NO. 12-md-02311
`
`HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI
`
`_________________________________
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`_________________________________/
`
`ORDER DENYING END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MASTER’S ORDER
`REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED ORDER OF DISCOVERY
`
`On October 8, 2014, the Master entered Order Re End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Motion to
`
`Modify Stipulated Order of Discovery (Doc. No. 835). The Order modified the discovery
`
`stay, allowing all Plaintiffs in those component part cases where discovery was
`
`underway to serve interrogatories regarding “makes, model names, model numbers,
`
`model platforms, and model years” of motor vehicles implicated in the guilty pleas. (See
`
`Doc. No. 835). Further, under the Order, Defendants retained their rights to object to
`
`requested discovery in their particular parts. (Id.)
`
`End-Payor Plaintiffs (“EPPs”) seek to expand discovery to all component part
`
`cases relative to those Defendants that had pleaded guilty or agreed to do so. In
`
`addition, EPPs seek an order requiring guilty-pleading Defendants to “substantively
`
`respond” to the interrogatories. (Id.)
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5), “Unless the appointing order establishes a
`
`different standard of review, the court may set aside a master's ruling on a procedural
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 854, PageID.11478 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 3
`
`matter only for an abuse of discretion.” The rulings on discovery matters addressed in
`
`the October 8, 2014 Order are procedural matters. Thus, the Court reviews the rulings
`
`under the abuse of discretion standard, not the de novo review standard advocated by
`
`EPPs. See Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. v. Posco, No. CIV.A. 12-2429 SRC,
`
`2014 WL 1266219, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2014).
`
`In this case, the standard is not met. EPPs first argue that discovery is proper
`
`even if those component part cases where motions to dismiss have not been filed.
`
`According to EPPs, “there can be no doubt that the court will uphold the plausibility of
`
`EPPs’ claims for relief” against each and every Defendant who has “pleaded guilty or
`
`agreed to do so.” (Doc. No. 837 at 2). The Court, however, declines to make such
`
`assumptions and go further by issuing orders based on those assumptions.
`
`Nor is the Court persuaded that the Master abused his discretion because the
`
`Department of Justice does not object to EPPs’ proposal. The Department of Justice
`
`has weighed in on discovery in the case before this Court because it is concerned with
`
`the integrity of its criminal investigation. The matters implicated in the Order do not
`
`impact the criminal investigation; the matters implicate the rules of civil procedure and
`
`case management of the civil litigation.
`
`Nor is the Court persuaded by EPPs’ argument that Defendants will not face any
`
`burden or expense in identifying vehicle models affected by the collusion or coordination
`
`described in the plea agreements. The burden on the Defendants to produce discovery
`
`before they have challenged the viability of the claims against them turns the discovery
`
`rules upside down. The mere fact that the benefits to EPPs are deemed “extraordinary”
`
`does not create a basis for rejecting the Order. It would be the unusual plaintiff that
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 854, PageID.11479 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3
`
`would not benefit tremendously from discovery before a viability challenge to the claims
`
`or the court’s jurisdiction could be instituted.
`
`Accordingly, EPPs’ objections are DENIED.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: November 4, 2014
`
`s/Marianne O. Battani
`MARIANNE O. BATTANI
`United States District Judge
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their
`respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on November 4, 2014.
`
`s/ Kay Doaks
`Case Manager
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
