LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., V. BEAUFURN, LLC, ET AL.

Filing 106

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 02/22/2021, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 99 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Motion fo r Sanctions, (Doc. 94 ), is DENIED and that Defendant and its counsel shall show cause why they should not "pay [Plaintiff] its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the [instant M]otion, including attorney's fees," Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).(Taylor, Abby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, )
INC., an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BEAUFURN, LLC, a North Carolina )
limited liability company;
)
and DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)

1:16CV1377

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed
on January 19, 2021, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 99.) In the Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Deposition Testimony and Motion for Sanctions, (Doc. 94), be
denied and “Defendant and its counsel be made to show cause why
they should not ‘pay [Plaintiff] its reasonable expenses
incurred in opposing the [instant M]otion, including attorney’s
fees,’” (Doc. 99 at 14 (brackets in original)). The
Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on

Case 1:16-cv-01377-WO-LPA Document 106 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 3

January 19, 2021, (Doc. 100). Defendant filed objections, (Doc.
103), to the Recommendation.1
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court “may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . .

[O]r recommit the

matter to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which the objections were made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, (Doc. 99), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and

Although nominally contesting the Recommendation to show
cause, Defendant’s objections substantively address the
propriety of expense-shifting. (See Doc. 103.) In other words,
the objections effectively respond to the show cause
recommendation rather than challenge the appropriateness of a
show cause order. Defendant is free to raise these issues as
part of the show cause determination; Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(B) prohibits the award of expenses if “other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
1

-2-

Case 1:16-cv-01377-WO-LPA Document 106 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 3

Motion for Sanctions, (Doc. 94), is DENIED and that Defendant
and its counsel shall show cause why they should not “pay
[Plaintiff] its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the
[instant M]otion, including attorney’s fees,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(B).
This the 22nd day of February, 2021.

__________________________________
United States District Judge

-3-

Case 1:16-cv-01377-WO-LPA Document 106 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 3