Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. CareSource et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ABIRA MEDICAL LABORATORIES, LLC,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:24-cv-157
vs.
CARESOURCE, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (Doc. No. 50); (2) ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 47); (3)
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 29); AND (4) DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE, WITHIN 14
DAYS, A MEMORANDUM DELINEATING THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES REASONABLY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH MAGISTRATE JUDGE SILVAIN’S
DISCOVERY ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC brings this case against Defendant CareSource.1
Doc. Nos. 1, 11. 	Plaintiff claims Defendant breached the parties’ contract by refusing to pay
Plaintiff for laboratory testing services. See Doc. No. 11 at PageID 63.
On August 27, 2025, during the discovery phase of the case, Defendant filed a motion for
sanctions, contending Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to participate in discovery and
disregarding the Court’s discovery Orders. 	Doc. No. 29 at PageID 188. 	Defendant requested
dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, as well as an award of attorney’s fees. Id. at PageID
189-92. 	Plaintiff responded (Doc. No. 30), and Defendant replied (Doc. No. 	31). 	The Court
1 Plaintiff also named as Defendants ABC Companies 1-100 and John Does 1-100 but did not explain their
potential identities or involvement in its operative, amended complaint. See Doc. No. 11. As such, the
Court hereafter uses “Defendant” to refer solely to Defendant CareSource.
Case: 3:24-cv-00157-MJN Doc #: 55 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
referred Defendant’s motion for sanctions to Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. to issue a Report
and Recommendation, or Order, as appropriate. Doc. No. 40.
On January 30, 2026, Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended granting in part and denying in part
Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Doc. No. 47. Judge Silvain recommended granting Defendant’s
request that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s
failure to follow Judge Silvain’s Order during the discovery teleconference on August 12, 2025,
and denying Defendant’s request for complete dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Id. Plaintiff filed a
timely objection to the R&R solely as to the recommended sanction that, if accepted, would require
Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s attorney’s fees. Doc. No. 50. Defendant filed a response. Doc. No.
54. Thus, the objection to the R&R is now ripe for review.
The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), Plaintiff’s objection and all filings in this matter. 	The Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s
objection. 	Judge Silvain’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 	28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED. The R&R is hereby ADOPTED in
full. 	As such, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion for
sanctions. 	Doc. No. 29. 	The Court DENIES Defendant’s request that Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed in their entirety and GRANTS Defendant’s request to require Plaintiff to pay
Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the
Judge Silvain’s Order on August 12, 2025. As such, Defendant is hereby DIRECTED TO FILE,
within 14 days of this Order, a memorandum delineating the costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees
Case: 3:24-cv-00157-MJN Doc #: 55 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
reasonably incurred by Defendant as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Judge
Silvain’s Order. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall have 14 days to respond.
Finally, no appeal is presently available in this case because this Order is not a final
appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 208
(1999) (“[t]o permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very
purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying
or harassing tactics during the discovery process”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 24, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00157-MJN Doc #: 55 Filed: 02/24/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>