Herford v. Hamster LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TAMMY HERFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAMSTER LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:24-cv-00097
JUDGE RICHARDSON
ORDER
Pending before the Court1 is a report and recommendation (Doc. No. 80, “R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the Court grant the “Motion to Strike Defendant Davyd
Yudin’s Answer and Enter a Default,” (Doc. No. 73, “Motion”),2 filed by Plaintiff, Tammy
Herford. No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time for filing objections has now
expired.3
Absent any objection to the statement of facts (regarding the procedural history and
underlying circumstances of this case) set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, the Court
adopts that factual background in its entirety and includes it here for reference.
This is a personal injury complaint filed against the Defendants arising out
of an automobile accident that occurred in Rutherford County, Tennessee on
1 Herein, “the Court” refers to the undersigned District Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge who
authored the R&R.
2 The Court notes here for context that although the Motion is titled in terms of seeking an “entry of default,”
the Motion is really seeking an entry of default judgment, which the Magistrate Judge recommended be
entered and which, absent any objection, the undersigned enters herein.
3 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file
any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. The R&R was filed on November
26, 2025. As of December 15, 2025, no party has filed any objections.
Case 3:24-cv-00097 Document 82 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

February 23, 2023. Docket No. 28. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the
Defendants’ actions, she suffered severe injuries and losses entitling her to recover
damages. Id.
The Court entered a scheduling order in this matter on October 15, 2024.
Docket No. 51. Among the deadlines set forth in the case management order was a
deadline for the completion of discovery by July 1, 2025. Id. On February 28, 2025,
Plaintiff served Defendant Davyd Yudin with written discovery requests. Docket
No. 73. Defendant failed to respond to the requests within the time allowed under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in the Plaintiff filing a discovery
dispute statement and requesting a discovery conference with the Court. Docket
No. 67. The Court held a case management conference with the Parties to discuss
the discovery dispute on August 22, 2025. Docket No. 68. Following the
conference, the Court entered an Order requiring the Defendant to respond to the
outstanding discovery requests by September 5, 2025. Docket No. 72. The Court
further indicated that no additional extensions would be granted. Finally, the
Defendant was “forewarned that failure to cooperate in discovery may result in
sanctions up to and including entry of judgment against him.” Id.
On October 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike
Defendant’s answer and enter default against him. Docket No. 73. The Plaintiff
represents that despite the Court’s order, the Defendant has failed to respond to the
discovery requests by the deadline imposed by the Court and has offered no
explanation, justification or motion for relief from the Court’s prior order. Id. The
Plaintiff seeks entry of default against the Defendant as a discovery sanction based
on his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s
specific order regarding discovery.
The Defendant has filed a response in opposition to the motion, The
Defendant does not dispute the assertions in the Plaintiff’s motion but argues that
given the extreme sanction of default, the Court should exercise its authority to
impose a lesser sanction. Docket No. 74.
(Doc. No. 80 at 1-2) (footnotes omitted). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s Motion
should be granted.
No party has filed objections to the R&R, and the time to file objections with the Court has
passed, as explained in a footnote above.
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
pretrial 	matter, 	the 	district 	judge 	must 	review 	de 	novo 	any 	portion 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge
Case 3:24-cv-00097 Document 82 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence, or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that a party
may file “specific written objections” to a report and recommendation, and Local Rule 72.02(a)
provides that such objections must be written and must state with particularity the specific portions
of the magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection
is made. “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of
specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object. Moreover, an objection that
does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply
summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context.”
Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. Id.; Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL
1242372, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). A
district judge is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of a
report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt,
Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-CV-0010,
2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
Absent objection, the R&R (Doc. No. 80) is adopted and approved, and Plaintiff’s Motion
(Doc. No. 73) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Clerk is DIRECTED to strike Defendant Davyd
Yudin’s answer (Doc. No. 54), and to enter a default judgment against Defendant Davyd Yudin.4
4 Via the Motion, Plaintiff also requests a hearing date to determine damages as to Defendant Davyd Yudin
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In light of the November 7, 2025 hearing on damages as to Defendant
Hamster LLC and Defendant Mikhail V. Yudin and in light of the Court’s order (Doc. No. 79) entering a
default judgment “in the total amount of $998,700.00 reflecting the sum of $248,700.00 in economic
Case 3:24-cv-00097 Document 82 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
damages and $750,000.00 in non-economic damages,” including “post-judgment interest,” against
Defendant Hamster LLC and Defendant Mikhail V. Yudin, (id.), the Court will issue an additional order to
clarify whether a damages hearing is still needed with respect to Defendant Davyd Yudin.
Case 3:24-cv-00097 Document 82 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>