UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARNELL BROWN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 4:14-cv-14350 

v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

 

NICOLE CARTER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS (DE 26) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Darnell 

Brown’s motion for sanctions. (DE 26.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to 

impose sanctions on Defendant Pellumb Sulaj for failing to disclose the identity of 

a purported co-owner of his business during the court’s May 28, 2015 status 

conference. Plaintiff indicates that he has been injured by Defendant’s failure to 

disclose because he is unable to amend his complaint without the information. 

 Although Plaintiff does not cite to a rule under which sanctions are 

appropriately brought, the Court will construe this as a motion under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16(f), as the events giving rise to his motion occurred at the 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 28 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 83
2

parties’ scheduling conference. Rule 16(f) provides that the Court “may issue any 

just orders . . . if a party or its attorney . . . does not participate in good faith” in the 

scheduling conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 

 Here, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied for two reasons. First, it is not clear 

that Defendant failed to participate in good faith at the scheduling conference. The 

Court did not ask Defendant to provide specific information about the tax structure 

of his business. Defendant indicated that he was the sole owner of his business and 

that the business was incorporated. Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion contradicts 

Defendant’s representations. Second, Plaintiff has not suffered prejudice as a 

result of the confusion over the individual paying taxes on Defendant’s business. 

See, e.g., Roe v. Nano Gas Tech., Inc., No. 14-cv-13790, 2015 WL 1952283, at *8 

(E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015) (declining to award sanctions where the moving party 

could not show prejudice). At the May 28, 2015 scheduling conference, the Court 

required the parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) on or before June 28, 2015. (DE 25.) The 

court set July 28, 2015 as the due date for amended pleadings. Plaintiff is therefore 

still free to amend his complaint as he sees fit. Moreover, Plaintiff is free to seek 

further information about the business, if discoverable, through the litigation 

process, and may avail himself of the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15 after July 28, 2015, if appropriate. 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 28 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 84
3

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. (DE 26.) The parties are cautioned that they are required to be 

forthright in all dealings with the Court and must abide by the principles outlined 

in the Civility Appendix (No. 08-AO-009) to the Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 28 Filed 06/03/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 85