Order | Filed: June 10, 2026
| Entered: June 10, 2026
Mayne Pharma Commercial LLC v. Medisol Plus LLC
Contract: Other Contract | Texas Northern
Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
The Court granted 43 Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Mayne Pharma Commercial, LLC's Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Oral Testimony of Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC's corporate representative. See Dkt. No. 49.
And the Court ordered that Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC file, by Thursday, April 23, 2026, a response explaining why the Court should not, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), require Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC to pay Mayne's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in having its counsel prepare and file its Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 43] and to fully explain whether either of the other two exceptions under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii) applies. And the Court ordered Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC to, by Thursday, April 23, 2026, file a response explaining why the Court should not, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3), require Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC to pay Mayne's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by Medisol's failing to appear for its properly noticed corporate representative deposition and fully explaining whether either of the two exceptions under Rule 37(d)(3) applies.
Medisol has done so. See Dkt. No. 52. In essence, Medisol asserts that Mayne served the discovery requests and deposition notice on Medisol's counsel of record, Brent Money, but Medisol did not receive notice of the requests or deposition notice and, so, did not intentionally fail to respond or appear. According to Mr. Money, he made repeated and diligent efforts contact the client since the discovery was served. According to Medisol, "[n]o service was made on Kenneth W. Sloan, who believed he had been substituted as counsel by prior filings of previous counsel, including Brent Money." But, in his own, now-denied motion to withdraw, Mr. Sloan (as Judge Kinkeade explained), "appears to take the position that he was in fact never serving as Medisol's counsel in this matter and he essentially claims to have no idea what has occurred and what has recently transpired in this case."
This is all a bit perplexing or vexing or something of the sort. But it does not show that Medisol's failures to respond to the requests and appear for deposition were substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Mr. Money remained Medisol's counsel of record until he filed a motion to withdraw in March 2026 and the Court granted it. Whatever right-hand/left-hand issues Medisol was having or has had with its counsel, Mayne was justified in serving its requests on Mr. Money -- and, as between Mayne and Medisol, Medisol should bear the burden of the expenses caused by its failures.
The Court orders that Judgment Debtor Medisol Plus, LLC is required, under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), to pay Mayne's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in having its counsel prepare and file its Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 43] and, under Rule 37(d)(3), to pay Mayne's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by Medisol's failing to appear for its properly noticed corporate representative deposition.
Mayne's counsel and Medisol's counsel are directed to confer by telephone or videoconference or in person about the reasonable amount of these attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded under Rules 37(a)(5) and 37(d)(3), as specified above. By no later than Monday, July 6, 2025, the parties must file a joint report notifying the Court of the results of the conference. If all disputed issues as to the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to Mayne have been resolved, Mayne's counsel must also send an agreed proposed order to the Court at Horan_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov by Monday, July 6, 2026.
If the parties do not reach an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded, Mayne must, by no later than Monday, July 20, 2026, file an application for attorneys' fees and expenses that is accompanied by supporting evidence establishing the amount of the reasonable attorneys' fees (as described above) to be awarded under Rules 37(a)(5) and 37(d)(3). The fee application must be supported by documentation evidencing the "lodestar" calculation, including affidavits and detailed billing records, and citations to relevant authorities and must set forth the itemized number of hours expended in connection with the recoverable attorneys' fees described above as well as the reasonable rate(s) requested. See Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2002).
If an application is filed, Medisol must file a response by Monday, August 10, 2026, and Mayne must file any reply by Monday, August 24, 2026.
(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 6/10/2026.) Modified on 6/10/2026 (Horan, David).