UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-23276-GAYLES/LOUIS

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis (the “Report”) regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and for Contempt (“Motion”). [ECF Nos. 440, 449]. On April 8, 2025, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part, and that Plaintiff be held in contempt of court for its failure to comply with the Court’s Order to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees or appear and defend itself at the April 7, 2025, show cause hearing. [ECF No. 449]. Judge Louis also recommended that Plaintiff and its counsel “be ordered to appear and show cause why a coercive daily fine should not be imposed until Plaintiff complies with the Court’s Order[.]” Id. at 6. On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff timely objected to the Report (“Objections”). [ECF No. 455]. On June 13, 2025, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objections (“Opposition”). [ECF No. 457]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, the Motion, Plaintiff’s Objections, and Defendants’ Opposition, and agrees with Judge Louis’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part.1 CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 449], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 440], is GRANTED in part;2 (3) Plaintiff UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC. is in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s December 3, 2024 Order, [ECF No. 439], and for failure to appear at the

April 7, 2025 show cause hearing. (4) Defendants shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, incurred in connection with this Motion, from Plaintiff. Defendants’ counsel shall submit a statement of fees and costs within ten (10) days of entry of this Order.

1 In its Objections, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he missed the show cause hearing due to a family medical issue. [ECF No. 455]. In her Report, Judge Louis notes that Plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Court approximately two hours before the hearing was scheduled to begin, stating that he would not appear for the hearing because of a “non-emergent medical appointment for his child.” [ECF No. 449 at 5]. Judge Louis also notes that no proper motion to continue was filed, id.; and in his Objections, Plaintiff’s counsel does not explain why he could not have done so. Even so, the absence of Plaintiff counsel at the hearing does not affect Plaintiff’s failure to appear or timely pay Defendants’ attorney fees as ordered. 2 In their Motion, Defendants request that the Court impose a “daily fine until Plaintiff pays the sanctions[.]” [ECF No. 440 at 2]. Instead, Judge Louis recommended that the Court schedule a hearing for Plaintiff to “show cause why a coercive daily fine should not be imposed[.]” [ECF No. 449 at 6]. As a result, Defendants’ Motion is only granted in part. (5) This case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis for proceedings consistent with this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of August 2025.

i». £ DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE