Robotic Vision Technologies LLC et al v. Shafi

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 48 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBOTIC VISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
and FREDERICK WEIDINGER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case Number: 11-12909
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ADIL SHAFI,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Doc. # 48)
On February 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents
from Defendant Adil Shafi and his company, Advenovation, Inc. The parties resolved
that motion; on February 14, 2013, the Court entered a Stipulated Order requiring Shafi
to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ document request on or before
February 28, 2013. (See Doc. # 46). Shafi failed to timely produce the documents.
On March 1, 2013, Shafi’s counsel sent the following email to Plaintiffs’ counsel:
Hi Tom, My client is working on finishing the document
request response. I know it was due yesterday and I
apologize for the delay. I hope to have it completed and to
you shortly. Thanks, John.
Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that it would be necessary to seek sanctions or a contempt
order.
Later that same day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default Against
Defendant. (Doc. # 48). This Motion is before the Court.
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an entry of default judgment against Shafi under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), which allows the Court to sanction a party for failing to obey a

discovery order. Plaintiffs argue that “[w]hile entry of default is a drastic remedy, it is
warranted here.” The Court disagrees.
Although Shafi failed to produce the documents before the February 28 deadline,
he was attempting, in good faith, to compile and produce the responsive documents on
time. In addition, Shafi’s counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel one day after the
deadline to apologize for the brief delay and inform him that the documents would be
produced “shortly.” Such a minor delay does not warrant the entry of default judgment.
Plaintiffs also seek to recover attorney fees for filing this motion under Rule
37(b)(2)(C).
One day after the documents were due, and before Plaintiffs incurred expenses
drafting their motion, Shafi’s counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel of the short delay.
Instead of communicating with Shafi’s counsel to determine when he would produce the
documents, Plaintiffs immediately filed a Motion for Default. If Plaintiffs would have
worked with Shafi’s counsel, they could have avoided the costs incurred filing the
motion. Accordingly, the Court declines to award attorney fees to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: December 5, 2013

2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
December 5, 2013.
S/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3