M. Kendra Klump

For repeated failure to follow court orders and participate in the case, recommended granting the defendant's oral dismissal motion without prejudice; the district judge adopted the grant but imposed dismissal with prejudice.

“On January 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 38), recommending that due to Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Court's orders and participate in this case, Defendant's oral motion to dismiss the case be granted and the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. ... the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in part, grants Defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismisses the Complaint with prejudice.”

Recommended default judgment where a business defendant was served but failed to defend, retain counsel as ordered, respond to the motion, or appear at the Rule 55(b) hearing, and the plaintiffs supported their requested damages.

“The undersigned, having reviewed the matter and being duly advised, RECOMMENDS to the District Judge that the Motion, Dkt. [23], be GRANTED, and Plaintiffs be awarded damages in the aggregate amount of $13,002.43”

Required a litigant seeking evidence to explain its relevance, serve a proper discovery request, wait for an inadequate response, and try to resolve the dispute directly before asking the court to compel production.

“It is not clear from Mr. Flagg's motion how evidence of the July 18 cell search would be relevant to the claims he is pursuing in this lawsuit. Regardless, there is no indication that Mr. Flagg has attempted to obtain the video through a proper discovery request, either to a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 or by subpoena to a nonparty under Rule 45. He may not file a motion to compel the production of evidence until he has served such a request, its recipient has failed to respond adequately, and Mr. Flagg has attempted to resolve the dispute directly with the recipient.”

In a trade-secret suit, recommended denying Rule 11 sanctions while discovery was incomplete because the claimants had a basis to expect evidentiary support after reasonable investigation. The district judge adopted the recommendation.

“However, Rule 11 does not require that a party establish concrete evidence of its contentions at the pleading stage or during discovery; it only requires that there will ‘likely be evidentiary support’ for the contention after ‘a reasonable opportunity’ for discovery has occurred.”