Court Opinion

ID: 9689576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:40:31.101091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.537824
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, J.
Counter-defendant appeals from the entry of a default judgment in favor of defendant. Default judgment was entered due to counter-defendant’s noncompliance with court-ordered discovery. GCR 1963, 313.2(2)(c).
Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment. Two notices to produce documents and tangible things were filed by defendant. Counter-defendant ignored these notices. The trial was adjourned four times, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, so that discovery could be completed. Never were the requested documents produced. Never did counter-defendant dispute the reasonableness of the court’s order of discovery. Counter-defendant did not heed defendant’s repeated warnings about the consequences of non-production of the documents. Not until the day default judgment was finally entered was there an attempt to explain the delay. The case had already been pending for 19 months. There was no abuse of discretion in the entry of the default judgment. First Bank of Cadillac v Benson, 81 Mich App 550; 265 NW2d 413 (1978), Humphrey v Adams, 69 Mich App 577; 245 NW2d 167 (1976).
Affirmed.
J. H. Vander Wal, J., concurred.