Huntington National Bank, N.A. v. Wilkerson
Filing
15
ORDER granting Motion to Compel (ECF No. 9 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. (SKra)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 24-11449
JAMES WILKERSON,
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant.
____________________________/
David M. Lawson
United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 9)
Before the Court is Plaintiff Huntington National Bank’s motion to compel
production of documents that was referred to the undersigned for determination.1
(ECF No. 9). Defendant Wilkerson, who is representing himself, was ordered to
respond to the motion by January 10, 2025. (ECF No. 11). To date, Defendant has
not responded to the motion or asked for more time to do so.
In his answer to the complaint, Defendant stated that he is illiterate; his wife
wrote the answer for him. (ECF No. 5). Despite his claimed illiteracy, he was able
to sign many loan and business documents without indication that he could not
read or write. These documents are attached to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF
1
Plaintiff mentions that its requests for admission are unanswered, but makes no
argument about the requests for admission nor attached those requests to its motion. Thus, the
Court assumes Plaintiff seeks an order compelling responses to its requests for production of
documents only.
No. 9-2). Defendant’s signature on each document suggests he has at least some
ability to read and write.
While the Court is sensitive to Defendant’s lack of reading and writing
skills, his failure to respond to the motion to compel has consequences. The
consequence here is that the Court will treat the motion to compel as unopposed.
When Defendant received the Court’s Order to respond, if he could not read that
Order, then presumably he could have given it to his wife to read and draft a
response, like she did for Defendant’s answer to the complaint. But Defendant did
not appear to take those steps here.
The Court reviewed the motion to compel and the requests for production of
documents (ECF No. 13), and finds the requests reasonable. Thus, the motion to
compel is GRANTED. That said, given Defendant’s asserted inability to read or
write, the Court declines to award costs and fees. Should Defendant continue to
ignore Plaintiff and this Court, costs, fees, and sanctions may be appropriate.
Defendant is ORDERED to respond or lodge appropriate objections to the
requests for production of documents within 21 days of this Order. Defendant is
warned that failure to comply with this Order and respond or object to the
discovery requests will subject him to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), including rendering default judgment against him or
treating his disobedience as contempt of Court.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which
the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in
effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 72.2.
Date: January 27, 2025
s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System or by First Class
U.S. mail on January 27, 2025.
s/Sara Krause
Case Manager
(810) 341-7850
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?