Western Reserve Logistics Group LLC v. Trend Beauty Corporation, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WESTERN RESERVE
LOGISTICS GROUP LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TREND BEAUTY CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:24-CV-02102-CAB
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JENNIFER DOWDELL ARMSTRONG
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
I. 	INTRODUCTION
This 	matter 	is 	before 	me 	on 	Defendant/Third-Party 	Plaintiff 	Trend 	Beauty
Corporation’s (“Trend Beauty”) motion to compel discovery responses from Defendant LV
Express, LLC (“LV Express”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37 and
Local Rules 16 and 37.1. (ECF No. 46). For the reasons set forth below, Trend Beauty’s
motion to compel is GRANTED. Additionally, within 10 days of the date of this order, LV
Express shall file a written response showing cause as to why I should not recommend the
imposition of sanctions, up to and including entry of a default judgment against it, for LV
Express’ failure to respond to discovery and failure to attend a discovery conference.
II. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Western Reserve Logistics Group LLC (“Western Reserve”) sued Trend
Beauty, LV Express, and several John Does, seeking declaratory and monetary relief. (ECF
No. 1). Western Reserve alleges that it contracted with LV Express to carry cargo for Trend
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 1 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Beauty, but that LV Express impermissibly subcontracted the work to other carriers, resulting
in damage to the cargo.
On February 21, 2025, LV Express filed its answer to Trend Beauty’s complaint and
a third-party complaint for contribution and indemnification against third-party defendants
Gerson’s Trucking, LLC and Bodhi Tranz Inc. (ECF No. 18). On the same day, Trend Beauty
filed its answer to the complaint, which included counterclaims against Western Reserve and
crossclaims against LV Express. (ECF No. 19).
On October 28, 2025, the Court referred the matter to me to resolve a discovery
dispute after Trend Beauty submitted a letter to the Court asserting that LV Express had failed
to fully respond to Trend Beauty’s interrogatories and requests for production. (ECF No. 43;
see also ECF non-document entry dated October 29, 2025).
On October 31, 2025, pursuant to my order, LV Express’ counsel filed a response to
Trend Beauty’s letter. (ECF No. 44). In the response, LV Express’ counsel stated that he
“agrees that the discovery responses of LV Express served on October 3, 2025 are deficient.”
Id. at PageID # 315. Counsel also stated that the responses were deficient because he had
been unable to communicate with his client for over five months. Counsel further stated that
LV Express’ insurance carrier retained a private investigator, who determined that LV
Express’ phones had been disconnected and that LV Express had moved out of its business
address. In light of the communication difficulties, LV Express’ counsel advised that he
would be unable to supplement LV Express’ discovery responses to correct the deficiencies.
On November 12, 2025, I held a Zoom discovery hearing, at which LV Express’
corporate representative failed to appear. (See ECF non-document entry dated November 12,
2025). During the hearing, LV Express’ counsel detailed the multiple, unsuccessful efforts he
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 2 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

3
had undertaken to locate and communicate with his client. Trend Beauty informed me that it
intended to file a motion to compel and to request sanctions, which I authorized.
On November 19, 2025, Trend Beauty filed the present motion to compel. (ECF No.
46). In addition to requesting that I compel LV Express to provide complete responses to its
requests for production and interrogatories, Trend Beauty seeks to recover its fees and
expenses incurred in attending the November 12, 2025 hearing and in bringing the present
motion. Trend Beauty further asks that I order LV Express to show cause regarding its failure
to participate in discovery and its failure to appear at the November 12, 2025 discovery
conference. Finally, Trend Beauty requests that, if LV Express fails to provide complete
responses to discovery or to respond to the requested show cause order, LV Express be held
in contempt and subject to sanctions, including entry of a default judgment.
On November 21, 2025, LV Express filed its response to Trend Beauty’s motion.
(ECF No. 47). In the response, LV Express’ counsel conceded that LV Express’ discovery
responses were deficient because of his inability to communicate with LV Express. Counsel
further stated that those communication difficulties persist and that he is unable to provide a
substantive response to Trend Beauty’s motion.
III. 	LAW & ANALYSIS
A. 	Trend Beauty’s Motion to Compel
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) provides that a party may move to compel
responses to discovery, including answers to interrogatories and production of documents.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)-(3). The party moving to compel “bears the burden of demonstrating
[the] relevance” of the requested discovery. White v. City of Cleveland, 417 F. Supp. 3d 896,
902 (N.D. 2019) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Columbus Downtown Dev. Corp., No. 2:16-
cv-557, 2019 WL 1760069, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2019)). If the moving party
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 3 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

4
demonstrates that the requested material is relevant, “the burden shifts to the non-movant to
show that to produce the information would be unduly burdensome.” Id. Courts have broad
discretion in overseeing the scope of discovery and ruling on motions to compel. See James
v. Cuyahoga County, 648 F. Supp. 3d 897, 903-04 (N.D. Ohio 2022).
Trend Beauty argues that LV Express failed to provide complete responses to
numerous interrogatories and requests for production. In response, counsel for LV Express
concedes that LV Express’ discovery requests are deficient, and states that the deficiencies
are the result of LV Express’ total failure to respond to counsel. My own review of LV
Express’ discovery responses confirms that they are deficient. LV Express is ordered to
provide complete responses to Trend Beauty’s requests for production and interrogatories
within 10 days of the date of this order.
B. 	Trend Beauty’s Motion for Sanctions and an Order to Show Cause
Trend Beauty also seeks sanctions under Rules 16(f) and 37(b) for LV Express’ failure
to respond to discovery and failure to attend the November 12, 2025 discovery conference,
along with an order to show cause as to why further sanctions, including entry of a default
judgment against LV Express, should not be imposed.
Rule 37(b) provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery, the court may impose sanctions, including, but not limited to, striking pleadings,
rendering a default judgment, or holding a party in contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) further provides that, if a party prevails on a motion to compel, the court
must order the nonmoving party or their counsel to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses,
including attorneys’ fees, unless the nondisclosure was substantially justified or other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
Rule 16(f)(1) provides in relevant part that a court may issue any just order, including
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 4 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

5
imposition of any appropriate sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), if a party or its attorney fails
to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1). Rule 16(f)(2)
further provides that a court may alternatively or additionally order the party to pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, resulting from the party’s noncompliance
unless the party’s noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2).
Beginning with Trend Beauty’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, I find that LV
Express’ failure to comply with its discovery obligations was not substantially justified.
“Conduct is ‘substantially justified’ if it raises an issue about which there is a genuine dispute,
or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.’” NPF
Franchising, LLC v. SY Dawgs, LLC, 37 F.4th 369, 381-82 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Doe v.
Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 407 F.3d 744, 766 (6th Cir. 2005)). Here, LV Express
has not raised any issues about which there is a genuine dispute, but has instead stopped
participating in the litigation altogether. Nor are there any other circumstances that would
make an award of expenses unjust. Trend Beauty is therefore entitled to recover its fees and
costs in connection with filing the present motion and in connection with its attendance at the
November 12, 2025 discovery hearing.1
I also agree with Trend Beauty that additional sanctions may be appropriate. LV
Express’ conduct—which its own attorney attests to—demonstrates a troubling lack of
respect for the Court, the other parties to the case, and its obligations under the Federal Rules.
1 Trend Beauty does not request sanctions against LV Express’ counsel. To the contrary, Trend Beauty expressly
states that sanctions against LV Express’ counsel are not appropriate because LV Express’ counsel has made
good faith efforts to communicate with his client and his been forthcoming with the parties and the Court
regarding counsel’s communication difficulties. I agree. Sanctions against LV Express’ counsel are not
appropriate. Instead, LV Express shall be solely responsible for Trend Beauty’s reasonable fees and expenses.
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 5 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

6
Accordingly, within 10 days of the date hereof, LV Express is ordered to file a response to
this order showing cause why I should not recommend that the Court impose additional
sanctions against it under Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A). LV Express is expressly cautioned
that failure to comply with my order compelling it to provide complete responses to Trend
Beauty’s discovery requests will impact my recommendation. LV Express is further
cautioned that, should it fail to provide complete responses to Trend Beauty’s discovery
requests or to respond to this show cause order, potential recommended sanctions may include
entry of a default judgment against LV Express or other appropriate sanctions.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Trend Beauty’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Within
10 days of the date of this order, LV Express shall provide complete responses to Trend
Beauty’s requests for production and interrogatories. Trend Beauty’s motion for reasonable
expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the present motion and attending the
November 12, 2025 discovery conference is also GRANTED. Finally, within 10 days of the
date hereof, LV Express shall file a response to this order showing cause as to why I should
not recommend the imposition of additional sanctions against LV Express for its failure to
participate in discovery and its failure to attend the November 12, 2025 discovery conference.
LV Express is on notice that, if it fails to provide complete responses to Trend Beauty’s
discovery requests in compliance with this order, or if it fails to respond to the show cause
order, such sanctions may include a recommendation that the Court enter a default judgment
against LV Express.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 6 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>

7
Dated: December 10, 2025 	/s Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case: 5:24-cv-02102-CAB Doc #: 48 Filed: 12/10/25 7 of 7. PageID #: <pageID>