Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. v. Soumah

Background

Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. sued Sip Soumah, doing business as Sparkling Image Detail, alleging federal and state trademark infringement and dilution and unfair and deceptive practices. Soumah filed an answer denying the claims.

Wash Depot served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on October 18, 2024. Soumah did not provide responses within the applicable deadlines, did not respond to Wash Depot’s discovery-deficiency letter, and did not respond after Wash Depot granted him an extension until February 24, 2025. The opinion also describes Soumah’s repeated failures to comply with court orders concerning settlement and discovery-related conferences.

Wash Depot moved for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 37. It requested a default judgment or, alternatively, an order compelling discovery responses and an award of its attorney fees and costs. Soumah did not respond to the motion.

Legal standard

Rule 37 allows a party to ask the court to compel answers to interrogatories and production of requested documents. When a court grants a motion to compel, it generally must require the noncomplying party to pay the reasonable expenses of making the motion unless the failure was substantially justified or another circumstance would make an award unjust.

Rule 37 also permits sanctions for violating a discovery order, including striking pleadings, staying proceedings, dismissing claims, or entering a default judgment. The court explained that default judgment is reserved for conduct such as willful violations of court rules, contumacious conduct, or intentional delays, and that default judgments are generally disfavored because courts prefer decisions on the merits.

Ruling

The court found that Soumah had willfully ignored his discovery obligations and that his failure was not substantially justified. After reviewing the discovery requests, the court found them relevant and proportional to the needs of the case and not unduly burdensome.

The court held that the conduct had not yet met the high standard for default judgment. It therefore ordered the following:

- Wash Depot’s request for default judgment was denied without prejudice. - Wash Depot’s motion to compel responses to its October 18, 2024 discovery requests was granted. - Soumah was ordered to respond by May 9, 2025. The court stated that it might reconsider default judgment if he failed to do so. - Soumah was ordered to pay Wash Depot’s reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in bringing the motion. - Wash Depot was ordered to file an itemized bill of those costs and fees by April 18, 2025.

The overall motion was granted in part and denied in part.