Clayton v. Kroopnick et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JUSTIN T. CLAYTON, on behalf of his minor
son, J.C.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 2:22-cv-12156
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
FOWLERVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES (ECF No. 73); GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
THIRD MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY PERIOD
(ECF No. 74); AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S
ATTORNEY
Over the last six months, Plaintiff Justin Clayton—through his attorney Jason
Daniel Wine—has repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage in discovery with
Defendant Fowlerville Community Schools. Most recently, Plaintiff was ordered to
respond to all of Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests by September 12, 2025.
But Plaintiff did not do so.
Accordingly, now before this Court is Defendant’s fourth motion to compel
Plaintiff to provide discovery responses, ECF No. 73, and Defendant’s third motion
to extend the discovery period due to Plaintiff’s production delays, ECF No. 74.
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
Notably, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion to compel, even though
he was granted extra time to do so. See ECF No. 77.
Given Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with Orders of this Court, as
well as his blatant disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant’s motions
will be granted. Plaintiff will be ordered to respond fully to all outstanding discovery
requests by November 8, 2025, and the discovery period will be extended to
December 10, 2025, only for Defendant. In addition, Plaintiff’s attorney will be
ordered to pay the costs and fees associated with Defendant bringing all four motions
to compel.
Lest this decision appear drastic, it is better understood by looking back on
the collective events leading to this point.
I.
This case was filed by Plaintiff Justin Clayton on September 12, 2022.1
Initially, Plaintiff was unrepresented, but on June 23, 2023, Attorney Jason Daniel
Wine appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. ECF No 21. Following the denial of
Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the end of 2024, the parties submitted a joint
discovery plan, ECF No. 44, and this Court entered a scheduling order that adopted
their proposed discovery deadline of May 30, 2025, ECF No. 46.
1 A subsequent case filed by Plaintiff was consolidated into this case in August 2023.
See Clayton v. Fowlerville School District, et al, Case No. 22-12325 (E.D. Mich).
All references are to the instant case.
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
On January 17, 2025, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery
requests that included several medical release authorizations to be signed by Plaintiff
to permit the release of his minor son’s medical records. Id. But by April 30, 2025—
one month before the close of discovery—Plaintiff had still not signed one of the
medical releases, and the other three had only been signed on April 29. ECF No. 49
at PageID.1474–75. This was so despite defense counsel’s numerous reminders to
Plaintiff about the medical releases. Id. Under these circumstances, Defendant filed
an unopposed motion to extend the fact discovery period to August 4, 2025, id.,
which this Court granted, ECF No. 50.
On June 5, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to
discovery requests that had been pending since January 17 and February 27, 2025,
and sought costs and fees associated with bringing the motion. ECF No. 55.
According to Defendant, despite sending multiple email reminders and requests to
meet 	and 	confer, 	Plaintiff’s 	counsel 	failed 	to 	respond 	in 	any 	way. 	Id. 	at
PageID.1499–1500. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the motion.
So on June 23, 2025, Defendant filed a second motion to compel Plaintiff to
respond not only to the first two sets of discovery requests, but also to a third set that
Defendant served on May 9, 2025. ECF No. 56. Defendant also requested an award
of costs and fees for having to bring another motion to compel. Id. Again, despite
defense counsel sending emails and requests to meet and confer, Plaintiff’s counsel
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
did not respond in any way. Id. And again, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the
motion.
This Court held a status conference on both motions to compel on July 7,
2025. At the conference, Plaintiff’s counsel admitted that he still had not fully
responded to Defendant’s discovery requests and that the failure to respond was
counsel’s fault, not his client’s. See ECF No. 70 at PageID.1570–71 (Mr. Wine: “I
haven’t been responding to them. It’s my fault.” . . . The Court: “Does your client
understand how dilatory you’ve been? Mr. Wine: “Yeah, I believe so.”) The Court
also informed Plaintiff’s counsel that discovery would only be extended for
Defendant because the need for an extension was due solely to Plaintiff’s counsel’s
delay. Id. at PageID.1576.
This Court granted both of Defendant’s motions to compel and directed
Plaintiff to comply in part by July 7 and in part by July 11, 2025. Id. at PageID.1578;
ECF No. 58. Due to representations made by Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the
imminent 	production 	of 	discovery, 	this 	Court 	declined 	to 	impose 	monetary
sanctions, even though Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he would not object to an
award of costs and fees. ECF No. 70 at PageID.1579. This Court warned Plaintiff’s
counsel, though, that if he didn’t cooperate with discovery going forward, this Court
would award Defendant costs and fees for both motions. Id.; see also ECF No. 58.
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
On July 16, 2025, Defendant filed a third motion to compel, asserting that
Plaintiff failed to meet the July 11 deadline required by this Court’s Order. ECF No.
59. Defense counsel allowed Plaintiff an extension to July 15, 2025, but Plaintiff did
not meet that either. Id. Defendant again requested costs and fees for the two prior
motions, as well as this third one. Id. Due to this delay, Defendants also moved to
extend the time for discovery only for itself. ECF No. 60. Plaintiff did not respond
to Defendant’s third motion to compel, despite the Court twice directing him to do
so. ECF Nos. 61; 65.
Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order on
the first two motions to compel, nearly a month after it was entered, requesting that
the Order be modified to extend discovery for Plaintiff—not just Defendant. ECF
No 66. The motion argued, without providing any facts or details, that it unfairly
prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to litigate his claims and constituted an inappropriate
sanction on Plaintiff for the sins of his attorney. Id. Plaintiff stated that despite costs
and 	attorney 	fees 	not 	being 	awarded 	to 	Defendant, 	Plaintiff’s 	counsel 	had
“voluntarily 	sent 	$5,000 	to 	Defendant’s 	firm to 	offset 	any 	expense,” 	id. 	at
PageID.1540, and compensate Defense Counsel for Plaintiff’s counsel’s (in)actions.
On August 19, 2025, counsel for the parties appeared before this Court
regarding Defendant’s third motion to compel, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to
discovery requests, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. At the conference,
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
Plaintiff’s attorney offered no explanation for why he still had not fully responded
to Defendant’s discovery requests. Instead, he simply argued that it was “not fair”
for discovery to not be extended for Plaintiff. See ECF No 71 at PageID.1607 (Mr.
Wine: 	“Yeah. 	I 	would 	seek 	fairness”). 	However, 	when 	pressed 	about 	what
information he needed to obtain from Defendant through the discovery process that
he could not obtain elsewhere, Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to articulate a single
item. This Court, therefore, granted Defendant’s third motion to compel, denied
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and once again warned plaintiff that if he
failed to comply with that or any other discovery order, sanctions may follow. ECF
No. 69. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests “on or
before September 12, 2025.” Id.
II.
This now brings us to Defendant’s instant motions, which were filed on
September 30, 2025. 	See 	ECF Nos. 73; 74. According to Defendant, “[t]he
September 12, 2025, deadline came and went without Plaintiff producing full and
complete 	discovery 	responses.” 	ECF 	No. 	73 	at 	PageID.1685. 	Defendant
acknowledges that Plaintiff finally provided interrogatory responses, but contends
that they were so vague and lacking in specificity that they failed to identify “specific
instances of discrimination Plaintiff 	relies on, what witnesses have knowledge of
those instances, and what damages he is seeking…” Id. Moreover, Defendant argues
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
that Plaintiff “remains dismissive of his obligation to fully and completely respond
to discovery.” Id. at PageID.1686. Defense counsel presented a voicemail he
received from Mr. Wine, left on September 22, 2025, stating, “And the discovery, I
will, ya know, whatever, I’m still on that. But um, I’ll get it to you soon.” ECF
No.73-2.
Defendant 	further 	argues 	that 	because 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	continued 	delays,
Defendant needs the time for discovery to be extended yet again. ECF No. 74.
Curiously, Plaintiff filed a response indicating that he concurred in Defendant’s
request for more time, so apparently this motion is unopposed. ECF No. 79.
As previously mentioned, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion to
compel, despite requesting and being granted, additional time to do so. See ECF No.
77. This pattern of neglectful attorney conduct, as well as Mr. Wine’s own
statements to the Court, signify that blame for most, if not all, of Plaintiff’s discovery
failings lies with Mr. Wine, as opposed to his client. Indeed, Mr. Wine’s continued
and blatant disregard for this Court’s numerous orders and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure generally, evidences bad faith. This Court has provided ample time for
Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations, as well as ample warning about
the consequences of failing to do so. Accordingly, it is time that this Court impose a
sanction for this behavior. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5); (b)(2)(C). So Defendant’s
request for costs and fees, not just for this motion to compel, but for the three prior
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
motions to compel that Defendant was forced to file as well, will be granted. And
because it appears that the fault lies principally with Mr. Wine and not his client, this
monetary sanction will be imposed on Mr. Wine personally; this cost is not to be
passed on to Mr. Clayton.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel, ECF No.
73, is GRANTED. To that end, Plaintiff must provide full and complete answers to
all of Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests by November 8, 2025.
Further, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant’s 	Third 	Motion 	to 	Adjourn
Discovery Period, ECF No. 74, is GRANTED. To that end, the discovery deadline
will be extended for Defendant only to December 10, 2025.
Further, it is ORDERED that as a sanction, Jason Daniel Wine shall pay all
costs and fees associated with Defendant’s four motions to compel (ECF Nos. 55,
56, 59, 73).
/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Dated: October 31, 2025
Case 2:22-cv-12156-SKD-APP ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/31/25 Page 8 of 8