Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff was granted an order allowing it to enter the defendant’s land for the purpose of conducting a survey, the plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied.
“MWS Ottawa, LLC twice moved this court for an order allowing it to enter Proto-Cam’s land for the purpose of conducting a survey. Proto-Cam failed to respond to either motion. At an October 13, 2025, hearing on the motions, Proto-Cam advised the court that it had no objection to the survey. Accordingly, the court ordered Proto-Cam to allow plaintiff/counter-defendant MWS Ottawa, LLC access to its property for the purpose of conducting a survey.
“Plaintiff/counter-defendant was understandably annoyed that at first Proto-Cam refused its request to survey the property, forcing it to file a motion. Then, after the motion was filed, Proto-Cam did not respond to the motion, showed up to the hearing only to concede the point.
“As a result, MWS Ottawa moved for sanctions. …
“Though the motion did not specify under what rule it was proceeding under, MWS Ottawa was clearly invoking MCR 2.302. That rule provides that a party may serve on another party a request to ‘permit entry on land.’ … Under this Rule, the party upon whom such a request is made, must serve a written respond to the request within 28 days. MCR 2.310(C)(2). …
“Discovery usually proceeds in an informal fashion. That is as it should be. Unfortunately, occasionally the parties fall into dispute, and one party seeks sanctions. In these instances, the court, unlike the parties, may not proceed informally. The court must look to the language of the Rule. In this case, the moving party did not include a proof of service in his motion. Nor did it state that it had, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with Proto-Cam to resolve the dispute before bringing it to court. …
“The motion for sanctions is DENIED.”
MWS Ottawa LLC v. Proto-Cam, Inc.; MiLW No. 10-110374, 3 pages; Kent Circuit Court; Benson, J.
