Gonzalez et al v. ADT Security Services Inc et al

Filing 141

OPINION AND ORDER: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, Magistrate Judge Gotsch's Report and Recommendation 137 is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 37 and Request for Other Discovery Sanctions 118 , 138 is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Pleadings 117 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as detailed in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 12/21/2018. (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARIA GONZALEZ, Individually
and as the Natural Guardian of
NELSON ROMERO, a Minor, and
SALMA GONZALEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADT LLC,
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, LLC,
ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY LLC,
and ERIC HARDISTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15CV290-PPS/MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
The Gonzalez family plaintiffs filed a motion seeking default judgment as a
discovery sanction. [DE 118.] The motion, memorandum in support and exhibits were
filed under seal, along with a motion requesting permission to seal those documents.
[DE 117, 118, 119.] I referred the motion for default judgment to Magistrate Judge
Gotsch, who had presided over the discovery in this case, for a report and
recommendation. [DE 122.] Judge Gotsch issued a thorough and thoughtful R&R on
November 15, 2018, recommending that the motion for default judgment be denied.
[DE 137.] Judge Gotsch also recommended the partial denial and partial grant of the
plaintiffs’ motion to seal, specifically recommending that plaintiffs be ordered to refile

their motion, memorandum and exhibits, filing only certain exhibits under seal and
filing other exhibits in redacted form. [DE 137 at 24.]
The R&R contained a notice, in bold print, that the parties were given 14 days
after being served with the R&R to “file specific, written objections to the proposed
findings and/or recommendations,” citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). [DE 137 at 24.] The notice
also contained this warning: “FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE
SPECIFIED TIME WAIVES THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S
ORDER.” [Id.] Because the R&R was served on counsel electronically on November 16,
the day after its issuance, any objections were due no later than November 30.
On November 30, defendants re-filed their motion for default judgment and
memorandum in support, unsealed, along with certain unsealed and redacted exhibits.
[DE 138, 139, 140.] This appears to have been done in compliance with Judge Gotsch’s
recommended disposition of the motion to seal. No objections to the R&R have been
filed. As the R&R warned, “[i]f a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit he waives appellate review of both
factual and legal questions.” Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999). The express notice included in the R&R supports the waiver of “the right to
contest a magistrate judge’s conclusions” where a party fails to present an objection to
the district court. Tumminaro v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2011).
Having failed to file objections within the meaning of §636(b)(1)(C) or Rule
72(b)(2), the Gonzalezes thereby waive objection to Judge Gotsch’s findings and
2

analysis. U.S. ex rel. McCandliss v. Sekendur, 631 Fed.Appx. 447, 451 (7th Cir. 2015). See
also Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 769 (7th Cir. 2015). “If no party objects to the
magistrate judge’s action, the district judge may simply accept it.” Schur v. L.A. Weight
Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). The R&R can be
adopted both because no objections to it have been filed and because it contains no clear
error. I have carefully reviewed the R&R. Judge Gotsch’s consideration of the
contentious history of discovery between these parties is detailed and careful, and his
analysis of the request for relief is thoughtful and reasonable. I find no basis to secondguess or reconsider the soundness of his conclusion that default judgment is not
warranted as a sanction in this case.
ACCORDINGLY:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, Magistrate Judge Gotsch’s Report and Recommendation [DE 137] is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 37 and Request for
Other Discovery Sanctions [DE 118, 138] is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Pleadings [DE 117] is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as detailed in the Report and Recommendation.
ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2018.

/s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3