Rosenstiel v. McDonald
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:23-cv-01876
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Rosenstiel v. McDonald, Judge Brasel recommended sanctions, liability default judgment, and fees after repeated discovery violations.
Michael Rosenstiel and John Paul McDonald. The recommendation would require McDonald to face a default judgment on liability and reimburse Rosenstiel’s reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees related to the sanctions motion, subject to district-court review.
What happened
In Rosenstiel v. McDonald, Michael Rosenstiel asked the court to sanction John Paul McDonald for repeatedly failing to participate in discovery, including failing to attend a deposition and answer discovery ordered by the court.
McDonald did not respond to several discovery motions or to the sanctions motion, and he did not explain why he failed to comply with the court’s May 7, 2024 order. Rosenstiel asked for a default judgment on liability and reimbursement of the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees for bringing the sanctions motion.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended that Rosenstiel’s sanctions motion be granted, that McDonald receive a default judgment on liability, and that McDonald pay the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees related to the motion. Judge Brasel had not yet entered a final district-court ruling in this report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Rosenstiel v. McDonald · No. 0:23-cv-01876
- Nancy Brasel
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Michael Rosenstiel moved for sanctions against John Paul McDonald under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). The motion concerned McDonald’s alleged failure to comply with a May 7, 2024 order requiring him to serve answers to an interrogatory within 21 days.
The report states that McDonald had failed to attend at least one deposition, failed to respond to multiple discovery motions, failed to respond to several discovery requests, and failed to comply with discovery obligations even after being ordered to do so. McDonald also did not respond to the sanctions motion, submit supporting materials, or request more time to respond.
Analysis
Rule 37 allows a court to impose sanctions when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Available sanctions include treating facts as established, limiting evidence, striking pleadings, dismissing claims, entering a default judgment, or treating the failure as contempt. The rule also generally requires an order requiring the noncomplying party, the advising attorney, or both to pay reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would be unjust.
The court concluded that McDonald’s repeated failures showed willful and bad-faith violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the May 7 order. It found that McDonald’s conduct was more serious than a minor failure to meet a deadline and recommended a default-judgment sanction as to liability. It also recommended that McDonald, but not his former attorney, reimburse Rosenstiel for all reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees associated with the sanctions motion.
Recommendation and procedure
The report and recommendation recommends that Rosenstiel’s motion for sanctions be GRANTED. It recommends a default judgment against McDonald as to liability, reimbursement of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees, and submission of an affidavit supporting the requested fees and expenses by September 6, 2024. McDonald could file objections to that affidavit by September 20, 2024.
The document is a report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served and that the report was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The recommendation also warns that further noncompliance could lead to additional sanctions, including dismissal or default judgment.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.