Tyson v. John R Service Center Inc. et al

Filing 163

ORDER granting 159 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SeTara Tyson,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-13490
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

v.
John R. Service Center, Inc.,
Credit Acceptance Corp., Sterling
Car Rental, Inc., d/b/a Car Source,
Al Chami, and Rami Kamil,

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL [159]
Before the Court is Plaintiff SeTara Tyson’s motion to compel
Defendants Car Source, Al Chami, and Rami Kamil to produce
documents and respond to interrogatories. (ECF No. 159.) Defendants
were ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s motion no later than January 13,
2020 and did not respond. (ECF No. 160.)
Having considered the unopposed motion and applicable law, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in this
case, which Defendants have not paid. She served discovery on

Defendants in the aid of a judgment or execution under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 69(a)(1). Plaintiff attached the discovery requests to her
motion, which she served on Defendants on November 26, 2019. (ECF
Nos. 159-2–159-7.) Defendants did not respond or otherwise object to the
discovery requests in the time period allowable under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (ECF. 159, PageID.1965.) Accordingly, any objections
they may have had are now waived.
Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s post-judgment
discovery is inexcusable and appears to be part of a pattern. Defendants
did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and to
take depositions of Sterling Rental, Inc., Al Chami, and Rami Kamil.
(ECF No. 151.) They did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion for an order
allowing them access and use of consumer credit reports relating to
Defendants Al Chami and Rami Kamil. (ECF No. 153.) They have failed
to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document requests and failed
to respond to this motion. Defendants did not appeal or otherwise seek a
stay of execution in this case. Instead, they have chosen to disregard the
outcome of the case, which is not permissible.

2

As set forth above, Defendants have waived any objections they
may have had by failing to submit responses by the original deadline.
Defendants are ordered to respond in full to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
by January 24, 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 16,
2020, using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or first-class U.S.
mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3