Brown v. Carter et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Sanctions--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARNELL BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:14-cv-14350
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.

NICOLE CARTER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS (DE 26)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Darnell
Brown’s motion for sanctions. (DE 26.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to
impose sanctions on Defendant Pellumb Sulaj for failing to disclose the identity of
a purported co-owner of his business during the court’s May 28, 2015 status
conference. Plaintiff indicates that he has been injured by Defendant’s failure to
disclose because he is unable to amend his complaint without the information.
Although Plaintiff does not cite to a rule under which sanctions are
appropriately brought, the Court will construe this as a motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 16(f), as the events giving rise to his motion occurred at the

parties’ scheduling conference. Rule 16(f) provides that the Court “may issue any
just orders . . . if a party or its attorney . . . does not participate in good faith” in the
scheduling conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
Here, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied for two reasons. First, it is not clear
that Defendant failed to participate in good faith at the scheduling conference. The
Court did not ask Defendant to provide specific information about the tax structure
of his business. Defendant indicated that he was the sole owner of his business and
that the business was incorporated. Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion contradicts
Defendant’s representations. Second, Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice as a
result of the confusion over the individual paying taxes on Defendant’s business.
See, e.g., Roe v. Nano Gas Tech., Inc., No. 14-cv-13790, 2015 WL 1952283, at *8
(E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015) (declining to award sanctions where the moving party
could not show prejudice). At the May 28, 2015 scheduling conference, the Court
required the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) on or before June 28, 2015. (DE 25.) The
court set July 28, 2015 as the due date for amended pleadings. Plaintiff is therefore
still free to amend his complaint as he sees fit. Moreover, Plaintiff is free to seek
further information about the business, if discoverable, through the litigation
process, and may avail himself of the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15 after July 28, 2015, if appropriate.
2 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. (DE 26.) The parties are cautioned that they are required to be
forthright in all dealings with the Court and must abide by the principles outlined
in the Civility Appendix (No. 08-AO-009) to the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3