Brown v. HSBC BANK USA, NA

Filing 143

ORDER Adopting 127 Report and Recommendation for Denying 104 Motion for Default Judgment and Denying 106 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (MacKay, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Roderick Brown,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-10163

Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC, and
Computershare USA,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING 12/18/18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Roderick Brown filed this pro se action, seeking various forms of relief relating to
the foreclosure and sheriff’s sale of his home in November 2016. (ECF No. 1). The Court referred
all pre-trial matters to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (ECF No. 50).
Brown has filed a motion for default judgment and a motion to show-cause Defendants for
failure to comply with Judge Majzoub’s August 27, 2018 discovery order. (ECF Nos. 104 and 106).
On December 18, 2018, Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein
she recommended that the Court DENY Brown’s motions. (ECF No. 127).
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter
by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen days after being served with
a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s
disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id.
On December 25, 2018, Brown filed objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 128). Defendants
1

responded, (ECF No. 130), and Brown replied (ECF No. 131).
In Brown’s first objection, he argues that Defendants did not provide him with all items
required under Judge Majzoub’s discovery order, and that he timely objected to this deficiency. In
his second, third, fourth, and fifth objections, Brown contends that Defendants failed to provide full
responses to specific aspects of his previous motion to compel. In response, the Defendants
acknowledge that their disclosures were late, but argue that they informed Brown that they would
not be able to meet the deadline, and that he did not object. Further, Defendants argue that they
provided their disclosures as soon as possible, and that the information Brown seeks in his last four
objections is either privileged or does not exist.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), where a party disobeys an order to provide or permit
discovery a court may issue an order “rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party[.]”
However, the Sixth Circuit has held that “[j]udgment by default is a drastic step which should be
resorted to only in the most extreme cases.” United Coin Meter Co., Inc. v. Seaboard Coastline R.R.,
705 F.2d 839, 845 (6th Cir. 1983). Such a sanction “should be imposed only if the court finds that
the failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Edwards v. City of Grand Junction, Tenn., 1999
WL 232694, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 1999) (citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d
1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)).
After review of Brown’s objections, the Court agrees with Judge Majzoub that:
Defendants’ late response caused minimal prejudice to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff offers
no evidence that Defendants acted in bad faith. In addition, Defendants attempted
to resolve the matter directly with Plaintiff, while releasing discovery materials as
they became available. Accordingly, the requested discovery sanctions, including
default judgment against Defendants, are not appropriate.
ECF No. 127, pageID 5158).

2

The Court also notes that Brown has failed to show that the discovery materials sought in
his second, third, fourth, and fifth objections exist and are discoverable.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the December 18, 2018 Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown’s Motion for Default (ECF No. 104) and Motion
to Show Cause (ECF No. 106) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: April 11, 2019

3