S.M., a minor, by and through her parents, C.M. and D.M., and C.M. and D.M. individually; K.A., a minor, by and through her parent, N.A., and N.A. individually; M.S., a minor, by and through her parent, S.C., and S.C. individually; K.F., a minor, by and through her parent, C.F., and C.F. individually; C.S., a minor, by and through her parent, S.S., and S.S. individually; D.A., a minor, by and through her parent., E.A., and E.A. individually; and R.H., a minor, by and through his parent, J.H., and J.H. individually, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMFIELD HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, PATRICK WATSON, and CHARLIE HOLLERITH, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants Case No. 2:21-cv-12707 United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division Filed November 29, 2022 Counsel Mark Roy Bendure, Bendure & Thomas, Grosse Pointe Park, MI, Sean A. Riddell, Lakeshore Legal Aid, Detroit, MI, Leonard Mungo, Leonard Mungo Assoc, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs S.M., Cedric McCarrall, Carmen Davidson-McCarrall, S.C., K.F., J.H., M.S., C.F., R.H., S.S., C.S. Michael D. Weaver, Plunkett & Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendants. Altman, Kimberly G., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 35) I. Introduction *1 This is a civil rights case. Plaintiffs are parents and their minor children who are suing Defendants claiming violation of their constitutional rights. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), all pretrial matters were referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 29). Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. (ECF No. 35). A telephone conference was held on November 29, 2022 before the undersigned to discuss the motion.[1] For the reasons that follow, the motion will be GRANTED. II. Legal Standard The scope of discovery, which permits a party to obtain “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,” is always subject to being “limited by court order[,]” and thus, within the sound discretion of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pointe Physical Therapy, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 700, 704 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (“Further, a court has broad discretion over discovery matters, Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999), and in deciding discovery disputes, a magistrate judge is entitled to that same broad discretion, and an order of the same is overruled only if the district court finds an abuse of discretion.”). Discovery is more liberal than even the trial setting, as Rule 26(b) allows discovery of information that “need not be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a party believes that another party is not complying with discovery requests, then it may file a motion to compel. Motions to compel are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B), which states, “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” III. Discussion Plaintiffs served their first requests for production on August 16, 2022. (ECF No. 35, PageID.434). Plaintiffs' counsel reached out to defense counsel on October 30 and November 7, 2022, in writing, to request responses. Defendants did not respond to these communications or to Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery requests. (Id., PageID.435-438). At the telephone conference, defense counsel noted that he had raised his objections to the discovery requests to plaintiffs' counsel during a conversation that was not in writing. In their response, Defendants point out that they have taken several remedial steps in response to the claims at issue in this case; that discovery request 39 seeks information far exceeding the claims and defenses presented in this litigation, and that Plaintiffs' requests to produce are “vague, overbroad, not proportion to the claims in the case, for the most part not limited in time and otherwise not entirely relevant to the claims presented in the cause of action.” *2 As an initial matter, the merits of Plaintiffs' claims are not at issue in the motion to compel. And Defendants' general claims of vagueness, overbreadth, and proportionality should be raised in written responses served to Plaintiffs within 30 days of receipt of their discovery requests absent a valid court order or stipulation between the parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A).[2] IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' first requests for discovery within 30 days of entry of this Order. The parties are also ordered to meet and confer regarding the scope of Plaintiffs' requests. Defendants may then raise their objections to Plaintiffs' requests in their discovery responses, and if necessary, Plaintiffs may move to compel responses to requests to which Defendants object. SO ORDERED. Detroit, Michigan Footnotes [1] A pending Motion to Compel from Defendants (ECF No. 32) was also discussed at this conference and will be the subject of a separate order. [2] Defendants cite Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2007) in support of their failure to respond. However, in Surles, the defendants were faced with requests for “an unlimited span of time,” properly objected to the requests in their responses, produced some documents, and provided an employee's affidavit to explain why further compliance would be unduly burdensome. Surles, at 304-305. Defendants here have taken none of these preliminary steps.