Published on:

Another Defendant is Sanctioned for Failing to Provide Discovery

In another decision involving sanctions for defendants failure to provide discovery, the district court for the Western District of Michigan granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The default was granted because the defendant had not participated in discovery. As the district court stated, “Defendants have not participated in discovery, but rather have refused to provide depositions or responses to [plaintiff’s] written discovery requests.”

The district court went on to note that defendants’ conduct was willful in that the defendants had ignored discovery deadlines and previous orders from the district court. “Defendants have ignored discovery deadlines and other obligations imposed both by the Rules of Civil Procedure and explicit orders of the Court.”

As a result of this conduct, the district court found that the plaintiff was not able to prosecute its claims and defend against the defendants’ counterclaim. Because the district court had already imposed monetary sanctions, the district court concluded that a more drastic remedy was appropriate and order entry of a default judgment against defendants. “The Court has already imposed less drastic sanctions, ordering Defendants to pay [plaintiff’s] reasonable attorney fees in connection with the earlier motion to compel. . . . [Plaintiff] is entitled to a default judgment in this matter.”

Belwith Products, LLC v. Seema Warwick Hardware, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1-10-cv-00724 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2011).
The authors of are patent litigation lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or