UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARIA GONZALEZ, Individually )

and as the Natural Guardian of )

NELSON ROMERO, a Minor, and )

SALMA GONZALEZ, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 3:15CV290-PPS/MGG

)

ADT LLC, )

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., )

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, )

ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., )

TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY LLC, )

and ERIC HARDISTY, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

The Gonzalez family plaintiffs filed a motion seeking default judgment as a 

discovery sanction. [DE 118.] The motion, memorandum in support and exhibits were 

filed under seal, along with a motion requesting permission to seal those documents. 

[DE 117, 118, 119.] I referred the motion for default judgment to Magistrate Judge 

Gotsch, who had presided over the discovery in this case, for a report and 

recommendation. [DE 122.] Judge Gotsch issued a thorough and thoughtful R&R on 

November 15, 2018, recommending that the motion for default judgment be denied. 

[DE 137.] Judge Gotsch also recommended the partial denial and partial grant of the 

plaintiffs’ motion to seal, specifically recommending that plaintiffs be ordered to refile 
2

their motion, memorandum and exhibits, filing only certain exhibits under seal and 

filing other exhibits in redacted form. [DE 137 at 24.]

The R&R contained a notice, in bold print, that the parties were given 14 days 

after being served with the R&R to “file specific, written objections to the proposed 

findings and/or recommendations,” citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). [DE 137 at 24.] The notice 

also contained this warning: “FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE 

SPECIFIED TIME WAIVES THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S 

ORDER.” [Id.] Because the R&R was served on counsel electronically on November 16, 

the day after its issuance, any objections were due no later than November 30. 

On November 30, defendants re-filed their motion for default judgment and

memorandum in support, unsealed, along with certain unsealed and redacted exhibits. 

[DE 138, 139, 140.] This appears to have been done in compliance with Judge Gotsch’s 

recommended disposition of the motion to seal. No objections to the R&R have been 

filed. As the R&R warned, “[i]f a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit he waives appellate review of both 

factual and legal questions.” Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 

1999). The express notice included in the R&R supports the waiver of “the right to 

contest a magistrate judge’s conclusions” where a party fails to present an objection to 

the district court. Tumminaro v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2011).

Having failed to file objections within the meaning of §636(b)(1)(C) or Rule 

72(b)(2), the Gonzalezes thereby waive objection to Judge Gotsch’s findings and 
3

analysis. U.S. ex rel. McCandliss v. Sekendur, 631 Fed.Appx. 447, 451 (7th Cir. 2015). See 

also Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 769 (7th Cir. 2015). “If no party objects to the 

magistrate judge’s action, the district judge may simply accept it.” Schur v. L.A. Weight 

Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). The R&R can be 

adopted both because no objections to it have been filed and because it contains no clear 

error. I have carefully reviewed the R&R. Judge Gotsch’s consideration of the 

contentious history of discovery between these parties is detailed and careful, and his 

analysis of the request for relief is thoughtful and reasonable. I find no basis to secondguess or reconsider the soundness of his conclusion that default judgment is not 

warranted as a sanction in this case. 

ACCORDINGLY:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, Magistrate Judge Gotsch’s Report and Recommendation [DE 137] is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 37 and Request for 

Other Discovery Sanctions [DE 118, 138] is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Pleadings [DE 117] is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as detailed in the Report and Recommendation.

ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2018.

 /s/ Philip P. Simon 

JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT