Tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship; Health Call v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc; Whether the actions pled & argued gave rise to tort liability; Discovery; Grant of a request for a protective order

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting defendants summary disposition because plaintiff failed to state valid claims. It also concluded that the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s requested discovery “did not fall outside the range of principled outcomes.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendants’ actions, as pled and argued, “did not give rise to tort liability.” The contract between nonparty-Essentia “and plaintiff did not create a situation in which any nonparties separately distributing Essentia products in plaintiff’s region were thereby engaging in tortious conduct.” The court held that plaintiff’s “last-minute, and unpersuasive, assertion of a breach by Essentia did not constitute properly pleading that plaintiff’s relationship with Essentia had broken down in some way. That this element was not properly pleaded supported summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).” The court concluded that to “state a valid claim, plaintiff also had to allege that defendants acted in an improper way. In this respect it is important to note that plaintiff and defendants are marketplace competitors.” The alleged torts (tortious interference with a business relationship and tortious interference with a contract) “are tools for preventing, or remedying, improper interference with business relationships, not for stifling competition or shutting down a competitor.” The court found that plaintiff’s “pleadings included no allegation that defendants ever intended to interfere with its contract with Essentia or any specific facts of any contact with Essentia.” The court determined that “defendants’ actions competing in the marketplace financially affected plaintiff is not enough. Plaintiff’s failure to connect defendants’ actions with any breakdown of its relationship with Essentia supported” the grant of summary disposition under (C)(8). As to the grant of defendants’ request for a protective order, the court found “it obvious that plaintiff could gain an undeserved competitive advantage by obtaining” the information it sought in discovery (including purchase orders, invoices, and delivery slips) “without having properly alleged valid claims against defendants.”