BWXT Nuclear Operations Group, Inc. v. J & L Hatfield, LLC, Jeffrey Hatfield, Lois Ann Hatfield

BWXT v. Hatfield · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · December 29, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-01054-SEB-KMB

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses BWXT Nuclear Operations Group, Inc.'s renewed motion for sanctions based on the defendants' failure to comply with discovery obligations and prior court orders. The magistrate judge recommends entering default judgment against J & L Hatfield, LLC, providing Jeffrey Hatfield and Lois Ann Hatfield one final opportunity to complete discovery, and imposing monetary sanctions and attorney-fee awards.

Holdings

  1. J & L Hatfield, LLC may not litigate pro se and may not be represented by Jeffrey or Lois Hatfield because an LLC must appear through licensed counsel.
  2. Default judgment should be entered against J & L as a sanction because it failed to comply with the First Sanctions Order and failed to obtain counsel despite repeated warnings and a reasonable opportunity to do so.
  3. Default judgment, adverse factual findings, and a prohibition against opposing BWXT's fraud claim should not be recommended against Jeffrey and Lois Hatfield at this time because they made a belated but substantive attempt to comply and paid previously ordered attorney fees.
  4. Jeffrey and Lois Hatfield should each be sanctioned $600, for a total of $1,800 payable to BWXT, and should pay BWXT's reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the renewed sanctions motion.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether J & L Hatfield, LLC should receive default judgment as a Rule 37 sanction for failing to obtain counsel and failing to comply with discovery orders.
  2. Whether Jeffrey and Lois Hatfield should receive default judgment or other adverse sanctions for their late and inadequate discovery responses.
  3. Whether monetary sanctions, including attorney fees, costs, and $1,800 in progressive sanctions, should be imposed for the discovery failures.
  4. What additional discovery and compliance measures should be ordered for Jeffrey and Lois Hatfield.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • Brown v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 664 F.3d 182, 190 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 301 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Incorporated, 845 F.3d 772, 779-80 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Nelson v. Schlutz, 878 F.3d 236, 238-39 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • 1756 W. Lake Street LLC v. Am. Chartered Bank, 787 F.3d 383, 385 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581 (7th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • United States v. Hagerman, 549 F.3d 538(followed)
  • Trade Well Int'l v. United Central Bank, 825 F.3d 854, 860 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • e360 Insight, Inc. v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637, 643 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…