Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds v. Crawford Pile Driving, LLC
4:18-cv-10932
E.D. Mich.Jun 21, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds) served Crawford Pile Driving, LLC and Todd Crawford with discovery (RFPs, interrogatories, RFAs) on July 19, 2018; defendants gave no timely written responses.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel on October 8, 2018; the court granted the motion on March 5, 2019, ordering full responses, production without objections within 21 days, deeming RFAs admitted, and awarding Plaintiffs fees/costs. A text order extended the deadline to April 2, 2019.
- Defendants failed to comply with the March 5 and March 26, 2019 orders, producing only some documents in May 2019 after Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Order to Show Cause; many requested financial records (ledgers, check registers) were not produced.
- At the May 14, 2019 show-cause hearing, defendants’ counsel stated many of the specific financial documents did not exist and had not inquired with the bank for copies of checks; the court found defendants offered no adequate explanation for noncompliance.
- The magistrate judge certified facts to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B), recommended adjudication of civil contempt, required reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ reasonable fees related to the show-cause proceedings ($560), and ordered immediate production of outstanding discovery or risk further sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants should be held in civil contempt for failing to obey discovery orders | Defendants ignored the court’s orders to respond and produce, warranting contempt | Noncompliance resulted from lack of documents and delay, not contumacious intent | Court recommended adjudication of civil contempt for failure to comply with March 5 and March 26 orders |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to fees/expenses for the show-cause proceedings | Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of attorney’s fees for time spent on the Petition, status conference, and hearing | Defendants did not meaningfully contest reasonableness at hearing | Court awarded $560 (2.8 hours at $200/hr), excluding time for drafting a proposed order as unnecessary |
| Whether defendants must immediately produce outstanding discovery (including checks) | Plaintiffs requested complete production without objections; check copies are obtainable from banks and relevant to claims | Defendants claimed many records do not exist and questioned relevance and expense of obtaining checks | Court ordered immediate production of outstanding discovery without objection or face further/severe sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58, IBEW v. Gary’s Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373 (6th Cir.) (contempt sanctions should not be used lightly)
- M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 289 F. App’x 927 (6th Cir.) (party seeking contempt must show violation of a definite, specific court order with knowledge)
- U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1983) (once violation shown, burden shifts to contemnor to prove inability to comply)
- U.S. v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028 (6th Cir.) (burden-shifting on inability to comply with court order)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s recommendation waives further appeal)
- Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.) (procedural waiver principles)