25-002492_recon.pdf
Ssp Associates Inc, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Saginaw, Respondent · 25-002492-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 SSP Associates Inc, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 25-002492 Saginaw Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL On September 16, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal compel Petitioner to respond to its discovery requests, which were served on or about August 11, 2025. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner failed to respond to Respondent’s discovery requests within 28 days of service, as required by TTR 243 and TTR 247. The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that if a party fails to timely respond to discovery requests, its right to object has been waived.1 Unlike other courts, however, the Tribunal’s discovery process is bifurcated into pre-valuation and post-valuation disclosure discovery. Because of this, a carte blanche rule that disallows a party’s right to object to discovery requests does not comport with the Tribunal’s practices, and the parties shall be afforded the right to object to discovery sought at the wrong phase of the discovery process. Petitioner may therefore object to discovery reserved for post-valuation disclosure discovery. All other objections have been waived, however, and Petitioner is required to respond to the requested discovery accordingly. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall serve its responses to the requested discovery on Respondent within 14 days of the entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s responses to the interrogatories shall be limited to the first 20 interrogatories. For purposes of this order, each discrete subpart of an interrogatory counts as a separate interrogatory.2 Failure to comply with this order may result in Petitioner being held in default, as 1 See Wallace R Welch v J Walter Thompson USA, Inc, 187 Mich App 49 (1991). 2 See MCR 2.309(A)(2) and TTR 243.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002492 Page 2 of 2 provided by TTR 237.3 Entered: October 16, 2025 By _____________________________ sw PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk 3 See also MCL 205.732.