Nelson v. I.Q. Data Int'l, Inc.
Nelson v. I.Q. Data Int'l, Inc.
2024 WL 3448466 (E.D. Mich. 2024)
July 16, 2024
Stafford, Elizabeth A., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court ordered the defendant to provide ESI, such as names and addresses of potential class members and information about its net worth, by a specific deadline. The Court also warned the defendant about the consequences of failing to comply with discovery rules and court orders regarding ESI.
Additional Decisions
Elizabeth NELSON, Plaintiff,
v.
I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant
v.
I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant
Case No. 22-12710
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Signed July 16, 2024
Counsel
John Evanchek, Canton, MI, Curtis C. Warner, c/o Kelley & Evanchek, P.C., Canton, MI, for Plaintiff.Krista Easom, Paul Gamboa, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Chicago, IL, Luke D. Wolf, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendant.
Stafford, Elizabeth A., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 42)
*1 Plaintiff Elizabeth Nelson moved for Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc., to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for disobeying the Court's April 10, 2024 Order, and for sanctions including attorney's fees, costs, and a class default judgment. ECF No. 42. In June 2024, the Court granted the motion for attorney's fees and costs, finding that defendant violated the order and waived its objections. ECF No. 48, PageID.541. But the Court deferred its decision about whether to impose more severe sanctions and ordered the parties to meet and confer to address the remaining deficiencies in defendant's discovery responses. Id., PageID.541-542. The Court also ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs and scheduled a follow-up hearing for July 16, 2024. Id., PageID.542.
For the reasons stated on the record during the July 16 hearing, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for sanctions:
- As the parties agreed during the hearing, Defendant must reimburse Nelson costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $7,830 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) within 30 days;
- By August 30, 2024, defendant must provide (1) the names and addresses of the putative class members and (2) discovery about its net worth, as requested in Nelson's Interrogatory 14 and Requests for Production 12-14.
- Besides the responsive discovery ordered above, defendant may not without leave of court and for good cause shown rely on any other documentary evidence beyond Bates No. 107.
At the end of the July 16 hearing, defendant tried to raise objections and request protective relief. But because defendant failed to timely object to the discovery requests, it waived any objections. Siser N. Am., Inc. v. Herika G. Inc., 325 F.R.D. 200, 210 (E.D. Mich. 2018). And defendant's verbal request for protective order is too late. “Although Rule 26(c)(1) has no explicit deadline, most courts require motions for protective orders to be filed before discovery responses are due. At the very latest, a motion for protective order must be made by the deadline for responding to a motion to compel.” Vickers v. Mt. Morris Twp. Police Dep't, No. 19-12250, 2022 WL 1404664, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2022) (citations omitted).
The Court warns defendant that continued violations of the rules of discovery or court orders will result in more severe sanctions, up to and including the entry of a default judgment against defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.