Ingham County Circuit Court; Docket No. 79-23767-CK; Unpublished
Judge Ray C. Hotchkiss; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligations of an Employer to Provide Earnings Information [§3158(1)]
Issuance of Court Orders in Discovery Disputes [§3159]
Good Cause Requirement for Court Orders [§3159]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion, Judge Hotchkiss held that the discovery provisions of §3159 of the Act justified issuing a protective order against plaintiff’s no-fault insurance company where the insurer had issued a blanket subpoena duces tecum to plaintiff’s employer instructing the production of "all those certain employment, medical and hourly payroll records and all other documents" which were in the employer's possession regarding plaintiff’s employment Plaintiff had contended that the subpoena was overly broad and sought information considerably in excess of the information which is properly recoverable by the Wage and Salary Verification Form approved by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to §3158 of the Act This form is basically limited to a "sworn statement of the earnings since the time of the accidental bodily injury and for a reasonable period before the injury, of the person upon whose injury the claim is based." The subpoena duces tecum in question went far beyond that and asked for virtually every bit of information contained in plaintiff’s employment file. Plaintiff also raised the objection that such broad production would violate plaintiff’s rights under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act (MCLA 423.506).
