1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

In re SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT 

CORP., consolidated cases. 

Civil Action No. 

5:11-cv-00032-RS/CJK 

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 72(a) OBJECTION 

TO ORDER DENYING ATTORNEY FEE AWARD 

 The Plaintiff, Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation, by its counsel, hereby 

objects pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) to the Order (Doc. 218) denying the 

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 211) for an award of attorney fees from Defendants Green 

Glass Mall, Inc. and Donovan’s Reef Lounge & Package Store, Inc., arising from a 

motion to compel production. 

 Upon consideration of timely objections to the order of a magistrate judge 

on a nondispositive matter, the district judge must “modify or set aside any part of 

the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

 If a motion to compel is granted, the Court: 

must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party 

or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party 

or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s 

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including 

attorney’s fees. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 219 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 3
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Exceptions are available if the party’s nondisclosure, 

response, or objection was substantially justified, among other reasons not 

applicable to the present situation. See id. 

 The Court previously granted (Docs. 176, 212) two separate motions for 

attorney fees to the Defendants. In the order to which the present objection has 

been made, the Court vacated the second of these awards and denied the Plaintiff’s 

motion. In that order, there was no finding that the Defendants’ failure to produce 

their computer systems and discs for inspection was “substantially justified.” 

Indeed, there was no reason at all given for the denial of the Plaintiff’s motion, 

beyond that “this matter must come to an end.” Such a denial is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

 More importantly, however, the failure to award attorney fees on the 

Plaintiff’s motion is clearly contrary to Rule 37 and must therefore be reversed. 

 In view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court 

reverse the order of the Magistrate Judge and enter an order requiring the 

Defendants to pay attorney fees and costs in the amount of $5,914.16, as 

determined in accordance with the Plaintiff’s original motion. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 219 Filed 08/17/12 Page 2 of 3
3

Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of August, 2012. 

 HARRINGTON LAW, P.C. 

 By: s/James M. Harrington 

 James M. Harrington 

 N.C. State Bar No. 30005 

 jharrington@harringtonlawpc.com 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff 

 HARRINGTON LAW, P.C. 

 P.O. Box 403 

 Concord, NC 28026-0403 

 Tel: 704-315-5800 

 Fax: 704-625-9259 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that the foregoing paper is being filed on the date indicated 

below using the Clerk’s CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of Electronic 

Filing to counsel of record as follows: 

STEVEN MITCHELL DEVER mitchdever@comcast.net 

Service on the following CM/ECF non-participants is being made on the same date 

by depositing a copy of same as First Class Mail, postage prepaid, in envelopes 

addressed to: 

ROBERT L. PAYNTER, SR. 

9083 SEAFAIR LN 

TALLAHASSEE FL 32317‐8188 

Date: August 17, 2012 s/James M. Harrington 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 219 Filed 08/17/12 Page 3 of 3