*1 Plaintiff Dr. John Biondi sues Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America (Jaguar Land Rover) under federal and state lemon-law and consumer-protection laws.[1] Biondi alleges that his leased Range Rover experienced battery issues related to the electrical system before the Range Rover completely failed while Biondi was driving to Florida.[2]

Following a protracted discovery dispute, multiple extensions, and a Magistrate Judge order, Jaguar Land Rover has yet to provide Biondi with complete disclosure required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Plaintiff Biondi seeks sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for Defendant Jaguar Land Rover's failure to respond to certain discovery requests.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff Biondi moved under Rule 37(b)(2)A to compel Defendant Jaguar Land Rover to respond to Biondi's discovery requests.[3] Specifically, Biondi stated that Jaguar Land Rover's responses to Biondi's Requests for Production were deficient, and that Jaguar Land Rover had waived any objection to the discovery when Jaguar Land Rover failed to timely respond or object.[4]

Earlier, Defendant Jaguar Land Rover had sought a protective order to limit its obligation to respond to certain discovery requests.[5] On August 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Parker denied Defendant's motion for a protective order.[6] Magistrate Judge Parker ordered Jaguar Land Rover to produce responses to the interrogatories and requests for production by August 31, 2023.[7]

On August 31, 2023, Jaguar Land Rover moved for an extension to produce the supplemental discovery requests.[8] Biondi opposed and moved for an order to show cause why Jaguar Land Rover should not be held in contempt.[9] Biondi sought sanctions that would find Defendant liable for the violation of federal and state consumer protection laws, or extensions and reasonable fees in the alternative.[10]

Magistrate Judge Parker granted Jaguar Land Rover's request for an extension but warned that further non-compliance would result in a report and recommendation that Defendant be ordered to show cause why it should not be sanctioned.[11]

On September 7, 2023, the Court ordered Biondi to report if Defendant Jaguar Land Rover failed to provide the ordered discovery by September 8, 2023. The Court warned that if Defendant did not provide the requested discovery, the Court would consider sanctions.[12]

On September 8, 2023, Biondi reported that Jaguar Land Rover again failed to provide satisfactory responses for the interrogatory and requests for production still at issue.[13] Defendant Jaguar Land Rover responded that its disclosures were not deficient.[14]

*2 Under Rule 26, parties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case.[15] A party may request an opposing party produce documents within Rule 26’s scope.[16] If the opposing party fails to comply, the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production.[17] An evasive or incomplete disclosure is a failure to comply.[18]

A party's failure to object to an interrogatory generally waives “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection.”[19]

If a party, after being properly served with a production request, fails to respond, the court may order sanctions.[20] The court may also order sanctions when a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery.[21] In both scenarios, sanctions can include an order that designated facts be taken as established, or prohibiting the disobedient party from making certain defenses or introducing certain evidentiary matters.[22] The court must also require the disobedient party to pay reasonable expenses.[23]

The Sixth Circuit has adopted a four-factor test regarding whether to impose sanctions: (1) whether the party's failure to cooperate in discovery is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the party's failure to cooperate in the discovery; (3) whether the party was warned that the failure to cooperate could lead to the sanction; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were first imposed or considered.[24]

Defendant Jaguar Land Rover's failure to provide discovery satisfies the Sixth Circuit's requirements for imposing sanctions. Jaguar Land Rover has failed to comply both with Biondi's repeated production requests and has failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order.

Biondi seeks responses to four requests that broadly concern information about similar vehicles that may have had battery-related electrical issues. Jaguar Land Rover failed to object to the interrogatories and failed to object to the request for production within thirty days of service.

To these requests, Jaguar Land Rover answered with an unsigned and unsworn response that it is unable to locate responsive documents or even determine the number of relevant vehicles.[25] It also objected to each request on various grounds.[26] After having five months to respond, repeated extensions, and a Magistrate Judge order, Jaguar Land Rover's evasive responses indicate a willful lack of cooperation.[27] Its untimely objections are waived.

The Magistrate Judge's September 5, 2023, order and the Court's September 7, 2023, order both served as explicit warnings that further failure to cooperate would lead to sanctions.[28] Biondi is prejudiced not just by the Jaguar Land Rover's unresponsiveness, but by the resources this dispute cost Plaintiff in the weeks before trial. However, because Defendant's actions substantively impact discovery about facts concerning other vehicles’ electrical issues, the Court declines to impose Biondi's requested sanctions that would broadly impose liability upon Defendant.[29]

*3 Considering this, the Court ORDERS the following sanctions be imposed. The Court orders the following facts as established for the purposes of this case:

At trial, JLRNA cannot introduce evidence or argue:

The Court also ORDERS Defendant Jaguar Land Rover to pay Plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees stemming from Jaguar Land Rover's failures to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. The parties may give briefing on the calculation of costs and fees.

For the preceding reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 37, as described in this opinion. The Court ORDERS Defendant Jaguar Land Rover to pay Plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees stemming from litigating Jaguar Land Rover's failures to respond to interrogatories and requests for production.

IT IS SO ORDERED.