QFS Transportation, LLC v. Estrada Transport Group, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
QFS TRANSPORTATION, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:21-cv-92
Judge Matthew W. McFarland
V.
ESTRADA TRANSPORT GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Knight Express Inc.' s Objection (Doc.
67) to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz' s Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 66). In the Order, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz granted Plaintiff
$15,756.00 in attorneys' fees arising from a discovery dispute between Plaintiff and
Defendant Knight Express. (See Doc. 66.) Defendant Knight Express filed an Objection to
the Order (Doc. 67), and Plaintiff filed a Response to the Objection (Doc. 68). Thus, this
matter is ripe for the Court's review. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Defendant's Objection (Doc. 67) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 66).
BACKGROUND
For the past year, Plaintiff and Defendant Knight Express have been engaged in a
lengthy 	discovery 	dispute 	involving 	documents 	that Plaintiff requested, 	and 	that
Defendant Knight Express failed to produce. (Magistrate Judge's Order, Doc. 66, Pg. ID
Case: 1:21-cv-00092-MWM Doc #: 69 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

708-09.) After repeated attempts to request these documents, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e); this Motion included a
request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs associated with the discovery dispute.
(Id. at Pg. ID 709; see also Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 51.) The Magistrate Judge granted
this Motion, including the award of fees and costs. (See Order, Doc. 62.) Plaintiff then filed
its Statement of Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 63), which detailed the fees and costs incurred. The
Magistrate Judge, after reviewing this Statement, granted Plaintiff an award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of $15,756.00. Defendant Knight Express now objects to this award.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
When a party files timely objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order,
such as a discovery ruling, the district court "must consider [the] timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); Brahmamdam v. TriHealth, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-
152, 2021 WL 4260418, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2021). "A decision is 'clearly erroneous'
when, 'although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence
is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,' or where
the 	magistrate 	judge improperly 	applies 	the 	law 	or 	employs 	an 	erroneous 	legal
standard." In re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Prods. Liab. Litig., 737 F. Supp. 3d 611, 615 (E.D.
Mich. 2024) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948);
Beck v. Haik, 377 F.3d 624,636 (6th Cir. 2004)).
The Order acknowledged that "there is a split of authority within this District as
to whether a party whose conduct necessitated a motion to compel should be required to
Case: 1:21-cv-00092-MWM Doc #: 69 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

pay the movant' s reasonable expenses incurred in the extrajudicial efforts to resolve the
discovery dispute before the motion was filed." (Order, Doc. 66 1 Pg. ID 714 (citing /4
Promotions, Inc. ·v. Splash Dogs, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-136, 2010 WL 2162901, at *3 (S.D. Ohio
May 25, 2010)).) The Magistrate Judge pointed both to cases in which the court granted
such fees, and also cases where the court denied recovery of fees related to a movant' s
informal attempts to resolve a discovery dispute. (Id. (collecting cases).) Nevertheless, the
Magistrate Judge, persuaded by the cases that granted fees, concluded that "extrajudicial
efforts are required" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and the Local Rules, and
"consistent with Rule 37(a)'s underlying purpose of encouraging resolution of discovery
disputes without unnecessary court intervention." (Id .) Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge granted fees to Plaintiff for the extrajudicial work. (Id.)
In its Objection, Defendant Knight Express admits that it does not cite any case
law in opposing the Order, recognizing instead that the Magistrate Judge reviewed the
relevant case law and acknowledged the split of authority in this District. (Objection, Doc.
67, Pg. ID 719.) Indeed, Defendant's issue with the Order is the Magistrate Judge's choice
to follow those cases within the District that have awarded fees for extrajudicial work in
discovery disputes. (Id.) But, beyond identifying the split and arguing that the Court
should have ruled 	the other way, Defendant provides no case law or additional
arguments to support its contention that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was incorrect. (Id.)
In fact, as Plaintiff points out, Defendant fails to acknowledge the standard of review for
a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive ruling. (See Response, Doc. 68, Pg. ID 722.) Put
simply, Defendant has not shown why the Magistrate Judge's Order is clearly erroneous
Case: 1:21-cv-00092-MWM Doc #: 69 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

or contrary to law. Rather, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly relied on
relevant law, and "[wJhere there are two plausible views, a decision cannot be clearly
erroneous." Johnson v. City of Memphis, Nos. 00-2608-STA-tmp, 04-2017-BBD-tmp, 2012
WL 423597, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2012) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470
U.S. 564,574 (1985)).)
Nevertheless, Defendant asks that" any claim for attorney fees be held in abeyance
until this case can be tried on the merits to determine if there is any liability." (Objection,
Doc. 67, Pg. ID 720.) Yet, as Plaintiff notes, Defendant again cites no legal basis for doing
so. (Response, Doc. 68, Pg. ID 723.) Instead, Plaintiff points out that, "if a sanctioned party
could unilaterally refuse to pay until after the merits of the case were finally resolved, the
deterrent and cost-shifting policies would be eroded 	or eliminated." 	(Id. 	(quoting
Huizinga v. Genzink Steel Supply & Welding Co., No. 1:10-CV-223, 2012 WL 13018642, at *1
(W.D. Mich. June 12, 2012)).) The Court agrees. There is no case law that Defendant cites
to support its request for an abeyance; rather, doing so would thwart the deterrent
purpose of the sanctions and fees.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant's Objection
(Doc. 67) is not well-taken; the Objection is thus OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's
Order (Doc. 66) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case: 1:21-cv-00092-MWM Doc #: 69 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By~~71:~~w
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND
Case: 1:21-cv-00092-MWM Doc #: 69 Filed: 11/19/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>