Full opinion text
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge. The Plaintiffs in this action — several local unions and related benefit funds — filed suit in June 2012 against Defendants Car-Win Construction, Inc. (“Car-Win”) and CRV Precast Construction, LLC (“CRV” and, collectively, “Defendants”). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted numerous violations of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and claimed that they are owed the balance of a judgment entered against Car-Win in New York and New Jersey state courts. After lengthy delays in the litigation of this case precipitated by Defendant’s failure to accede to the discovery orders of Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger, Plaintiffs have moved for the entry of a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(vi). Plaintiffs also request injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to submit to an audit of their financial records from January 1, 2008, through the present, and an award of fees associated with an earlier motion for default judgment. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of Magistrate Judge Dol-inger, recommending that Plaintiffs motion for a default judgment be granted, that a post-default inquest be conducted, and that Plaintiffs’ request for an audit be granted subject to temporal qualifications described within the Report. No objections to the Report have been filed. When reviewing a report and recommendation, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C) (LexisNexis 2012). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Wilds v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Dol-inger’s thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objection was made, the Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant CRV is hereby ordered to submit to an audit of its financial books and records for the period from January 1, 2008, to the present; Defendant Car-Win is hereby ordered to submit to an audit of its financial books and records for the periods from May 24, 2010, through May 31, 2011, and from June 21, 2012, through the present; and Plaintiffs’ default judgment motion is granted as against each Defendant as to liability. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for the conduct of an inquest as to damages. This Order resolves Docket Entry Number 49. SO ORDERED. REPORT & RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL H. DOLINGER, United States Magistrate Judge. On June 21, 2012, plaintiffs — which consist of a number of local unions and related benefit funds — filed an action in this court against two allegedly related construction companies, Car-Win Construction, Inc. (“Car-Win”) and CRV Precast Construction, LLC (“CRV”). Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that defendants violated provisions of the governing collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that mandate contributions to the funds, payment of certain wages, and access to records necessary to ensure compliance with the CBA, and that plaintiffs are owed the balance due under a judgment entered against Car-Win in both New York and New Jersey state courts. Plaintiffs now seek a default judgment against defendants for failing to comply with discovery obligations and related orders by this court. They also seek injunc-tive relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to submit to an audit of their financial records from January 1, 2008 through the present. Separately, plaintiffs seek an award of fees associated with an earlier motion for a default judgment. For the reasons that follow, we recommend that plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment be granted, that a post-default inquest be conducted, and that plaintiffs’ request for an audit be granted subject to the temporal qualifications that will be described. We also recommend that plaintiffs’ application for fees be granted in its entirety. PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Plaintiffs’ Complaint We begin by detailing plaintiffs’ allegations and the relief they seek. Plaintiffs include Local Union Nos. 40 and 361 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, both of which represent “individuals who perform structural iron work.” (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5). Local Union No. 40 represents workers in a “geographical jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Counties of New York and the Bronx.” (Id. at ¶ 4). Local Union No. 361 represents a “geographical jurisdiction, including but not limited to the County of Brooklyn.” (Id. at ¶ 5). The remaining plaintiffs are benefit funds related to these two unions, which include, inter alia, a health fund, a pension fund, a vacation fund, and an annuity fund (the “Funds”). (Id. at ¶ 6). Car-Win entered into a CBA with the unions beginning on July 1, 1996. (Compl. ¶ 10; see also Ex. 2 to Deck of Alicia M. Shotwell dated Feb. 14, 2014 (hereinafter “4th Shotwell Deck”) [docket no. 51]). Among Car-Win’s obligations under the CBA, it agreed to make various contributions to the plaintiff benefit funds. (Compl. ¶ 10). The precise terms of those arrangements are delineated in the CBA and various Agreements and Declarations of Trusts incorporated into the CBA by reference. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12; see also Ex. 2 to 4th Shotwell Deck at’ §§ 16-24 of the attached CBA). Broadly, Car-Win committed itself to contributing to these funds based on the hours worked by its employees and hourly rates set by the CBA. (Compl. ¶ 12; see, e.g., CBA § 16(a)). Additionally, while these sections of the CBA frame the requirement of benefit contributions in terms of hours worked by union employees, the agreement elsewhere states as follows: The Employer agrees not to sell or assign, subcontract or sublet any work covered by this Agreement to any person, firm or corporation which is not in contractual relationship with the Union. Any Employer who violates this section shall be liable to the Joint Funds for the fringe benefit contributions due on work performed by his subcontractor. (CBA § 39; see also Compl. ¶ 12). As will be discussed later, see infra pp. 279-80, defendants assert that Car-Win ceased operations in September 2009. (See, e.g., Ex. 6 at ¶ 3(1) to 4th Shotwell Deck). Plaintiffs allege, however, that CRV is merely an alter-ego of Car-Win, that CRV and Car-Win are a single employer, and that CRV is a “disguised continuance” of Car-Win, an arrangement designed to “avoid[ ] [Car-Win’s] contractual and Trust Fund obligations.” (Compl. ¶¶ 13-17). Plaintiffs ultimately assert that CRV was and is as bound by the CBA as Car-Win (id. at ¶ 17) and that Car-Win and CRV are “jointly and severally liable for each other’s debts and obligations.” (See, e.g., id. at ¶ 56). Plaintiffs go on to allege that CRV engaged in covered work in the craft and geographic jurisdiction of Local Union No. 361 and failed to comply with the requirements of the CBA. (Id. at ¶ 25). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that CRV did not pay the required wages for this work, in the sum of $263,250.00. (Id.). Plaintiffs further allege that CRV neglected to make the related contributions to the benefit funds, in the sum of $357,223.00. (Id. at ¶ 26). Plaintiffs also seek additional damages pursuant to the CBA, including interest ($28,242.00), attorneys’ fees ($89,305.75), and liquidated damages ($71,-44.60). (Id. at ¶ 27). With respect to Local Union No. 40, plaintiffs allege that CRV failed to pay $65,710.00 in required wages. (Id. at ¶ 31). Plaintiffs also assert that CRV neglected to make $87,722.40 in benefit contributions, and they seek additional damages for this violation as well, including interest ($8,610.91), attorneys’ fees ($21,930.60), and liquidated damages ($17,544.48). (Id. at ¶¶ 32-33). Turning from CRV’s violations of the CBA — as an alleged alter-ego of Car-Win — the complaint then delineates several allegations against Car-Win itself. (See id. at ¶¶ 34-48). First, plaintiffs explain that “[p]ursuant to the terms and conditions of the applicable C.B.A. and Trust Agreements, CARWIN, is required to provide access to the records necessary for the Trust Funds to determine whether CARWIN complied with the obligation to contribute to the Trust Funds.” (Id. at ¶ 35; see also CBA § 24(a), (d)). According to plaintiffs, Car-Win “fail[ed] to allow Plaintiffs to schedule and complete an audit of CARWIN’s books and records for the period May 24, 2010 through May 31, 2011 after demand for an audit was made upon CARWIN.” (Compl. ¶ 36). Plaintiffs thus seek access to Car-Win’s financial records for this period for purposes of an audit, on the basis of which they will seek whatever benefit contributions the audit reveals to be due. (Id. at ¶ 40). Plaintiffs are also asking for a slew of related remedies, including attorney and auditor fees, court costs, interest, and liquidated damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-40). Finally, plaintiffs explain, based on an audit that they did perform of Car-Win’s financial records, that defendant failed to make benefit contributions for the period of August 1, 2008 through July 26, 2009, in addition to related interest and liquidated damages payments. (Compl. ¶42). The parties eventually agreed to settle these claims on June 24, 2010 for $72,509.62, of which $36,991.49 represented the unpaid contributions. (Id. at ¶ 43). To secure plaintiffs against the possibility of Car-Win’s default on this agreement, Car-Win also executed a Confession of Judgment for the full amount allegedly due, which was $118,749.41. (Id. at ¶¶ 43-44). Plaintiffs state that Car-Win did indeed default on settlement payments, after having paid only the $36,991.49 representing the past-due contributions. (Id. at ¶ 45). Subsequently, plaintiffs filed the Confession of Judgment in the Nassau County Supreme Court on November 10, 2011, in which a judgment was entered for $82,-017.92 — presumably, the total amount due under the Confession of Judgment, less what was paid toward the settlement amount. (Id. at ¶¶ 45^46). Plaintiffs also docketed this judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County on February 7, 2012. (Id. at ¶ 47). They now seek the amount due under this judgment, “together with additional contractual damages pursuant to the C.B.A.” (Id. at ¶ 48). II. Early Procedural History We have recounted a portion of the protracted procedural history of this case before. (See Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 [docket no. 42] pp. 2-6). We reiterate much of that history again here — elaborating on it in some detail — both because of what has transpired since we last visited the possibility of a default judgment and because of the particular importance of detailing such history in motions of this sort. Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Car-Win and CRV on June 21, 2012. (Docket no. 1). On June 27, 2012, plaintiffs served defendants’ current attorney, Mr. George Christopoulos, with a copy of the- summons and complaint. (Decl. of Alicia M. Shotwell dated Apr. 29, 2013 (hereinafter “1st Shotwell Decl.”) [docket no. 28] at ¶ 6 & Ex. C). Through the New York Secretary of State, Car-Win itself was served on August 13, 2012 (see docket no. 8) and filed its answer on September 4, 2012. (Docket no. 9). CRV — through Frank Valentino, a designated recipient — was served on July 2, 2012. (Docket no. 5; see also 1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 7 & Ex. F). Shortly before then, the District Court had scheduled an initial conference for September 28, 2012. (See Order dated June 28, 2012 [docket no. 2]). This order required that a joint “Preliminary Pre-Trial Statement” be filed by no later than seven days before the initial conference. (Id). On September 25, 2012, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the District Court — -with the consent of Mr. Christopoulos (at the time, seemingly only representing Car-Win) — asking for an adjournment of this conference “as we attempt to obtain the information necessary to prepare the pre-trial statement.” (Letter dated Sept. 24, 2012 [docket no. 10]). This letter did not describe the reasons for the delay, although a later declaration explained that “[b]oth Plaintiffs and DEFENDANTS were [initially] unaware of [the] requirement” of the pre-trial statement. (1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 8).- However, the letter did note that, in attempts to obtain the consent of CRV to the requested adjournment, counsel had reached out to Mr. Valentino, “who informed us that he was unfamiliar with the lawsuit ... [even though] our Affidavit of Service [see docket no. 5] indicates that Mr. Valentino was served with our papers on July 2, 2012.” (Letter dated Sept. 24, 2012). The initial conference was thus adjourned to October 26, 2012. (Id). By letter dated October 18, 2012, however, Mr. Christopoulos (now nominally representing both Car-Win and CRV) asked for another adjournment, with plaintiffs’ consent. (Letter dated October 18, 2012 [docket no. 11]). While plaintiffs had prepared their portion of the pre-trial statement, Mr. Christopoulos “require[d] additional time to gather the information necessary to prepare the pre-trial statement.” (Id). The District Court thus rescheduled the initial conference to December 7, 2012. (Id). The pre-trial statement was eventually-filed on December 3, 2012. (See docket no. 12). In that document, Mr. Christopoulos pointed out that — while he was attorney of record for Car-Win and had advised plaintiffs that he would be representing CRV as well — -he had not yet submitted an answer on behalf of CRV and “[a]s a result, the details of CRVs involvement in this action were not discussed at the time the Parties met and conferred to prepare this Statement.” (Id. at p. 1 n. 1). Having held the initial conference on December 7, 2012 — by which time CRV had still not responded to the complaint— the District Court ordered that defendant do so by December 21, 2012. (See Pretrial scheduling order dated [docket no. 14] at ¶ 12). This date came and went, but CRV did not file its answer (dated January 21, 2013) until January 25, 2013. (Docket no. 17). Additionally, in the District Court’s December 7, 2012 scheduling order, all parties were instructed to serve their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by December 21, 2012. (Pre-trial scheduling order at ¶ 12). While plaintiffs served their initial disclosures by this date, neither Car-Win nor CRV did so — nor did defendants produce anything in the several months thereafter, as we are about to describe. (See 1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13). On February 20, 2013, plaintiffs served document requests on both defendants. (1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 17 & Ex. R). As defendants did not respond to these requests within the required thirty days, plaintiffs sent a letter, to defendants’ counsel insisting on responses by March 28, 2013. (1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 17 & Ex. U). By letter dated March 28, 2013, plaintiffs sought a pre-motion discovery conference, which we scheduled for April 17, 2013. (See Ex. X to 1st Shotwell Decl.; Order dated April 1, 2013 [docket no. 20]). III. First Motion for a Default Judgment At the April 17, 2013 conference, plaintiffs’ counsel summarized the state of the case: Aside from the two answers and the various adjournment requests, she had received nothing from defendants. (Apr. 17, 2013 Tr. 2). They had neither responded nor objected to plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and they had not propounded any discovery requests of their own. (Id.). We then turned to defendants’ counsel and asked, “Your client is ready to default in this case? You’re on the edge of a default.” (Id.). Counsel responded as follows: “I advised them this morning, Judge, as I was on my way to see you, I told them it probably won’t be a very pleasant experience. I have advised them that they have had the discovery demand for a period of time.” (Id.). We then directed defendants to provide full and complete discovery responses to all requests by April 24, 2013 and explicitly warned counsel that failure to do so would likely result in a motion for default. (Id. at 3). We also advised defendants’ counsel that “for the sake of giving your clients a real taste of reality,” he should acquire a copy of the conference transcript and show it to his clients-a suggestion with which counsel agreed. (Id. at 4-5). On- April 24, 2013, defendants predictably asked for two more weeks to produce documents, an application that we denied in an endorsed order that gave them two more days to comply. (See Endorsed letter dated Apr. 24, 2013 [docket no. 23]). This order, too, was violated (see 1st Shot-well Decl. at ¶ 20), and plaintiffs therefore filed their motion for sanctions on or about April 29, 2013, seeking entry of a default against both defendants. (See docket nos. 26-28). We then set May 10, 2013 as the date by which defendants were to respond to this motion. (Endorsed order dated May 1, 2013 [docket no. 29]). Defendants did indeed respond to the motion on May 10. (Docket nos. 32-33). This also happened to be the date on which defendants began delivering discovery responses to plaintiffs. (See Decl. of Alicia M. Shotwell dated May 15, 2013 (hereinafter “2d Shotwell Deck”) [docket no. 35] at ¶4 & Ex. C). Defendants claimed that their delivery of such documents on the day their response to the motion was due was the coincidental result of the logistics of production, copying, and mailing. (See Deck of George Christopoulos dated May 10, 2013 [docket no. 32] at ¶¶ 3-5). Still, we noted in a subsequent order — and we reiterate here-that this production was “[i]n obvious response to the threat of sanctions.” (See Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 p.4). Ultimately, by May 16, 2013 or thereabout, defendants had provided plaintiffs with fifteen boxes of documents — much of it apparently irrelevant — not labeled, indexed, or organized in any discernable order. (See Decl. of Alicia M. Shotwell dated June 25, 2013 (hereinaftér “3d Shotwell Deck”) [docket no. 38] at ¶¶ 6, 16). In light of this vast and bewildering production, plaintiffs wrote to the court requesting that we hold our decision on their motion in abeyance, pending the results of an in-person meeting with defendants’ counsel that was intended to assist in sorting out the nature of the provided material. (See Endorsed letter dated May 28, 2013 [docket no. 36]). The parties’ counsel apparently met at least three times over subsequent days (3d Shotwell Deck at ¶ 7), yet were unable to come to an agreement about the sufficiency of defendants’ production. (See Endorsed letter dated June 18, 2013 [docket no. 37]). We therefore authorized plaintiffs to supplement their motion with an explanation of the remaining outstanding deficiencies in defendants’ production. (Id.). The supplementary papers submitted after that order included lists of essential corporate and financial documents still sought by plaintiffs from both defendants, as well as responsive lists by defendants of items either produced or unable to be produced. (See, e.g., Decl. of George Christo-poulos dated July 2, 2013 [docket no. 39] at ¶ 3 & Ex. A). Fundamentally, what remained was a familiar type of discovery dispute: Plaintiffs sought certain items and defendants generally asserted that they had provided whatever they had, explaining that the unproduced items were either non-existent or not locatable. (Id.). With plaintiffs still seeking a default judgment, we then employed an equally familiar solution, finding the harsh remedy of a default judgment to be premature. (See Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 pp. 10-12). By order dated January 2, 2014, we instructed both defendants to provide to plaintiffs’ counsel, within one week from the issuance of this memorandum and order, an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury by individuals with personal knowledge specifying in detail (1) the document retention and storage policies ... pertaining to the categories of documents that [they] claim[ ] to be unable to locate and (2) specifying the nature and extent of the search that this defendant made for the categories of documents that it claims to be unable to find. (Id. at p. 10; see also id. at p. 11). We further directed that, within one week of the receipt of those affidavits or declarations, plaintiffs were authorized to depose “any affiants or declarants concerning document retention and storage and the searches made for those documents.” (Id. at 10-11). We also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled. to reimbursement for “the reasonable expense of their motion practice” and allowed them to serve and file an affidavit or declaration, with contemporaneous time records, within two weeks. (Id. at 12). Defendants were to, respond within one week thereafter. (Id. at 13). IV. Second Motion for Default Judgment On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs alerted us to defendants’ non-compliance with our January 2 order ánd requested a conference on the matter. (Letter dated Jan. 10, 2014 [docket no. 43]). We then met with the parties at an in-person conference on January 31, 2014. (See Jan. 31, 2014 Tr. [docket no. 63]). Even by that date, defendants had still not sent to plaintiffs the required affidavits or declarations. (Id. at 2, 5). At that point, we advised plaintiffs that, in light of defendants- “endless default in this case,” they were authorized to file another “default motion or other sanctions motion.” (Id. at 5). We set a briefing schedule and informed defendants that “unless something has dramatically changed by then the hammer will fall.” (Id.). Accordingly, plaintiffs filed their motion for sanctions on February 14, 2014, and defendants filed their opposition on February 21, 2014. (See docket nos. 49-53). PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against defendants under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Pls.’ Mem. 5 [docket no. 50]). Plaintiffs frame their arguments around an oft-cited set of relevant factors, see, e.g., World Wide Polymers, Inc. v. Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corp., 694 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir.2012), contending (1) that defendants’ non-compliance with discovery has been willful (Pis.’ Mem. 7-9), (2) that lesser sanctions will be ineffective (id. at 9-10), (3) that the length of non-compliance militates in favor of default (id. at 10-11), (4) that defendants’ had been duly warned of the potential consequences of continued non-compliance (id. at 11-12), and (5) that defendants’ repeated discovery failures have prejudiced plaintiffs. (Id. at 12-14). Apart from an entry of a default, plaintiffs seek equitable relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to submit to an audit of their financial records. (Id. at 14-16). DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION Defendants’ opposition is less cleanly structured and somewhat difficult to follow. However, as we will detail below, they are generally asserting (1) that the above-stated factors are not met in this case, (2) that plaintiffs are, in any event, specifically at fault with respect to the current dispute, (3) that plaintiffs’ own conduct during the course of discovery has been so deficient as to excuse defendants’ own failures, and (4) that, even if imperfectly, defendants have partially fulfilled their obligations under our last order and that default is therefore too harsh a sanction here. (See Opp. Mem. 1-4). Finally, defendants counter plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief by suggesting that this application is not permissible under either relevant case-law or our instructions to the parties. (Id. at 4-5). ANALYSIS I. Motion for Default Judgment Under Rule 37(b) A. Relevant Legal Framework Plaintiffs seek a default judgment under Rule 37. (See Pls.’ Mem. 5). In pertinent part, Rule 37(b) states that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the’ court may “render[ ] a default judgment against the disobedient party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). As emphasized by. the Second Circuit, “[i]mposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 is within the discretion of the district court and a decision to dismiss an action [or enter a default] for failure to comply with discovery orders will only be reversed if the decision constitutes an abuse of that discretion.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc., 845 F.2d 1172, 1176 (2d Cir.1988)). It is well established that, when exercising discretion pursuant to Rule 37, our court is guided by the following factors: “(1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance; and (4) whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of ... noncompliance,” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir.2009)); see also Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 451 (2d Cir.2013); Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., 2014 WL 4635575, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014). While these four factors are often the only ones specifically listed in the context of discovery sanctions motions, “[b]ecause the text of the rule requires only that the district court’s orders be ‘just,’ however, and because the district court has ‘wide discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 37,’ these factors are not exclusive.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Realty, Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 144 (2d Cir.2010)). Given that discretion, judges in this district often allude also to the prejudice suffered by the movant when assessing the propriety of a sanctions motion. See, e.g., S. New England, 624 F.3d at 148-49 (citing cases), Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH v. Langton, 2011 WL 280815, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011), Martinez v. E & C Painting, Inc., 2008 WL 482869, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2008). Although real prejudice to a litigant may serve as a compelling consideration in support of dis-positive relief, the Second Circuit has recently emphasized that a lack of prejudice should not be given significant weight in the overall analysis. See S. New England, 624 F.3d at 148-49 (“[W]e, along with the Supreme Court, have consistently rejected the ‘no harm, no foul’ standard for evaluating discovery sanctions ... Although one purpose of Rule 37 sanctions may in some cases be to protect other parties to the litigation from prejudice resulting from a party’s noncompliance with discovery obligations, ' Rule 37 sanctions serve other functions unrelated to the prejudice suffered by individual litigants.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). We are mindful that sanctions “akin to dismissing the action altogether” — sanctions such as the imposition of a default judgment — are “drastic remedies].” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159. However, “discovery orders are meant to be followed.” S. New England, 624 F.3d at 144 (quoting Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 853 (2d Cir.1995)). Therefore, “judgment against a defendant ... may be appropriate in extreme situations, as when a court finds willfulness, bad faith, or any fault on the part of the noncompliant party.” Guggenheim, 722 F.3d at 451 (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, we have noted in the past- — importantly, including explicitly in our January 2, 2014 order on plaintiffs’ last motion for a default judgment — that “dis-positive measures are certainly in the court’s arsenal, if needed, to remedy otherwise irremediable prejudice or to address persistent bad-faith pre-trial conduct by a litigant.” Local Union 40 of the Int'l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers v. Car-Win Constr., Inc., 2014 WL 61443, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2014) (quoting Briese Lichttechnik, 2011 WL 280815, at *8 (citing cases)). Below, we consider each aspect of this analysis in turn. B. Application of the Relevant Framework to the Current Motion i. Willfulness and the Reason(s) ' for Nortr-Compliance We begin our examination of the relevant factors with “the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for noncompliance.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302). We conclude that defendants have indeed engaged in extended willful violation of their discovery obligations and court orders. In our January 2, 2014 order, we clearly stated that defendants were to provide plaintiffs with affidavits or declarations explaining their document-retention policies and the nature and extent of their search for the documents they assertedly could not produce. (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 pp. 10-12). This requirement was, itself, a last-ditch attempt at saving defendants from dispositive discovery sanctions. (Id.). Defendants flouted the deadline set by our order and had no explanations for their noncompliance at the January 31, 2014 conference. (See Jan. 31, 2014 Tr. 3-5). At that conference, we squarely addressed this failure with defendants’ counsel: “So your clients have failed to comply with our most recent discovery order,' correct? It is a simple yes or no.” (Id. at 5). While counsel declined to give this ‘yes or no’ answer, he did say this: “I can’t answer that question, your Honor. I have advised them what needs to be provided, Judge. It hasn’t been given to me. That’s all I can tell you.” (Id.). In defendants’ memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, they argue that they “have not willfully disregarded the Court’s Orders”- — -but they completely ignore the very order that brought us to this point. (See Opp. Mem. 2-3). Instead, defendants point out that “they have submitted an answer, initial disclosures and discovery responses.” (Id. at 3). Putting aside the fact that — perhaps with the exception of Car-Win’s answer — defendants repeatedly ignored deadlines set with respect to these submissions (see supra pp. 257-61), they seem to be attempting to distract us from the immediate issue at hand: their failure to serve the required affidavits or declarations, which, themselves, were designed as remedies for their earlier alleged failures. (See supra pp. 260-61). Defendants have not, however, entirely forgotten their obligations under our January 2, 2014 order and statements at the January 31, 2014 hearing. Buried, within defendants’ counsel’s declaration in opposition is a clear reference to these affidavits. (Opp. Decl. [docket no. 52] at ¶ 5). There, counsel devises a new justification for defendants’ delinquency: “As to the affidavits, those can most certainly be provided however; I would prefer that Your Honor respectfully not have the Defendants’ execute affidavits as they will be deposed wherein plaintiffs’ counsel is free to inquire as to document retention and the Defendants’ storage policies.” (Id.). In other words, we gave an order and defendants had the ability to comply, but they purposefully chose not to do so for reasons all their own and without first asking permission from this court. Without our resorting to the dictionary, this seems as good a definition of ‘willful’ as any. We also note that the insidiously mundane reason provided for defendants’ noncompliance does not render their behavior excusable. Defendants “forget[ ] that sanctions must be weighed in light of the full record in the case.” Cine Forty-Second St. Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062, 1068 (2d Cir.1979) (citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metrop. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976); see also In re Tartaglione, 2008 WL 336844, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2008)). Taken out of context, perhaps, any individual incident of discovery misconduct may appear forgivable — especially when framed by some post-hoc excuse that rings of reasonableness. However, [i]f parties are allowed to flout their obligations, choosing to wait to make a response until a trial court has lost patience with them, the effect will be to embroil trial judges in day-to-day supervision of discovery, a result directly contrary to the overall scheme of the federal discovery rules ... Any other conclusion would encourage dilatory tactics, and compliance with discovery orders would come only when the backs of counsel and the litigants were against the wall. S. New England, 624 F.3d at 149 (quoting Cine Forty-Second St., 602 F.2d at 1068). ii. The Efficacy of Lesser Sanctions Next, we must consider “the efficacy of lesser sanctions.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302). To this end, plaintiffs remind us (see Pls.’ Mem. 9) of the purposes of Rule 37 sanctions, such as “to ‘ensure that a party will not benefit from its own failure to comply,’ to ‘obtain compliance with a particular order issued,’ and to ‘serve a general deterrent effect on the case at hand and on other litigation, provided that the party against whom they are imposed was in some sense at fault.’ ” Szafrankowska v. AHRC Home Care Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 186206, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) (quoting Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Pub., Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 71 (2d Cir.1988)); see also S. New England, 624 F.3d at 149. There is no indication that any of the above-stated purposes of Rule 37 would be effectuated by the employment of lesser sanctions at this point. We have been here before. Indeed, “this motion seems like deja vu all over again.” In re New York Int’l Hostel, Inc., 1997 WL 633522, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1997) (citing Yogi Berra). In response to plaintiffs’ last motion for a default judgment — explicitly acknowledging “the availability of alternative remedies short of default” — we denied the request for default and provided an avenue by which defendants were given the chance to explain away their alleged noncompliance via affidavits or declarations. (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 p. II). With that order now violated, we are particularly concerned with the third above-quoted purpose of Rule 37, which we will restate here in the words of the Supreme Court: [T]he most severe in the spectrum of. sanctions provided by statute or rule must be available to the district court in appropriate cases, not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent. Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643, 96 S.Ct. 2778. Especially in light of repeated warnings to defendants — an aspect of this analysis that we will discuss in more detail below, see infra pp. 266-67 — at a certain point, if a court does not eventually follow through on its warnings, it risks undermining its ability to control current and future would-be wayward litigants. See Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 303 (“Even when the Magistrate Judge imposed a lesser sanction, [the non-compliant party] still failed to comply.”). “[U]nless Rule 37 is perceived as a credible deterrent rather than a ‘paper tiger,’ the pretrial quagmire threatens to engulf the entire litigative process.” Cine Forty-Second St., 602 F.2d at 1064; see also Update Art, Inc., 843 F.2d at 71; In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 WL 742603, *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2010). iii. The Duration of Now-Compliance The third of the relevant factors is “the duration of the period of noncompliance.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302). On this front, durations of time as brief as a few months have been held to weigh in favor of dispositive sanctions. See, e.g., Embuscado v. DC Comics, 347 Fed.Appx. 700, 701 (2d Cir.2009) (three months); Georgiadis v. First Boston Corp., 167 F.R.D. 24, 25 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (four months). And periods of six months or more weigh even more heavily toward such remedies. See, e.g., Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 303 (six months); Phelan v. Cambell, 507 Fed.Appx. 14, 16 (2d Cir.2013) (seven months); Ruzsa v. Rubenstein & Sendy Attorneys at Law, 520 F.3d 176, 177 (2d Cir.2008) (seven months); Battiste-Downie v. Covenant House, 471 Fed.Appx. 78, 79 (2d Cir.2012) (one year); see also Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42-43 (2d Cir.1982) (“[A] pattern of dilatory tactics ... consisting], for example, of groundless motions, repeated requests for continuances or persistent late filings of court ordered papers ... may warrant dismissal after merely a matter of months.”). Here, initial disclosures were due by December 21, 2012 (see Pre-trial scheduling order at ¶ 12) and responses to plaintiffs’ document requests were originally due on or about March 20, 2013. (See 1st Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 17 & Exs. R, U). Defendants served no discovery until the week of May 10, 2013 (see 3d Shotwell Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 16), and only after repeated cancellations of settlement conferences (see supra p. 259 n. 10), follow-up letters sent by plaintiffs (see, e.g., Exs. U & X to 1st Shotwell Decl.), the April 17, 2013 conference, additional orders compelling compliance (each of which was violated) (see Apr. 17, 2013 Tr. 3; Endorsed order dated Apr. 24, 2013), and plaintiffs’ first motion for sanctions. According to plaintiffs, even defendants’ May 2013 production was grossly inadequate. (See Endorsed letter dated June 18, 2013). However, in light of defendants’ claims that some or all of the still-unpro-duced discovery was either non-existent or somehow lost (see Christopoulos Decl. Dated July 2, 2013 at ¶ 3 & Ex. A), we denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and instead set about defining a non-sanction remedy in the form of the required affidavits or declarations. (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014). Unsurprisingly, these documents never came, nor did defendants’ counsel ask us for an extension of the deadline imposed for their delivery, even when we held a conference on the issue weeks after the original deadline had passed. (See Jan. 31, 2014 Tr.). Plaintiffs’ second motion for a default judgment was filed on February 14, 2014— well over a year after the initial discovery-deadline of December 2012. Defendants have dragged plaintiffs and this court through “a pattern of ‘prolonged and vexations obstruction of discovery.’ ” S. New England, 624 F.3d at 148 (quoting Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 663 F.2d 371, 388 (2d Cir.1981)). The case law fully supports viewing this history as one that weighs strongly in favor of dispos-itive sanctions. iv. History of Warnings The next evaluative factor is “whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of ... noncompliance.” World Wide, 694 F.3d at 159 (quoting Agiwal, 555 F.3d at 302). “Although parties have ‘no absolute entitlement to be warned that they disobey court orders at their peril,’ ” Silva v. Cofresi 2014 WL 3809095, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2014) (quoting Daval Steel Prods, v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1366 (2d Cir.1991)), this factor has been identified as the “[m]ost critical [ ]” of those listed in Agiwal and World Wide. See, e.g., Ruiz, 2014 WL 4635575, at *3 (quoting World Wide, 694 F.3d at 160). Indeed, the Second Circuit “has repeatedly upheld dismissal as an appropriate sanction where the non-compliant parties were warned of the possibility.” Ruiz, 2014 WL 4635575, at *3 (citing cases). Therefore, even a default judgment is appropriate where a party “has engaged in ‘sustained and willful intransigence in the face of ... explicit warnings from the court.’ ” Urbont v. Sony Music Entm’t, 2014 WL 6433347, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2014) (quoting Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir.1994)); see also Obot v. C.I.R., 254 Fed.Appx. 57, 58 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 210 (2d Cir.2001)) (“[I]t is difficult to imagine how a dismissal [for failure to prosecute] following an unheeded warning could be an abuse of discretion”). In our case, defendants “cannot credibly argue that [they were]' not sufficiently warned that serious sanctions were imminent.” Guggenheim, 722 F.3d at 453. As early as the April 17, 2013 conference, we warned defendants’ counsel that his clients were “on the edge of default.” (Apr. 17, 2013 Tr. 2). We also then warned counsel of the possibility of a motion for default (see id. at 3), which came about on April 29, 2013. (Docket nos. 26-28). In our January 2, 2014 order, we determined that “a dispositive sanction is not required at this stage.” (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 p. 11). Still, we observed that “the production efforts of both defendants [had] been woefully untimely and seemingly incomplete to some degree.” (Id. at 12). We therefore felt it necessary to order defendants’ preparation of affidavits or declarations to explain defendants’ evident shortcomings in discovery. (Id. at 10-12). These were due within one' week of the issuance of our order, yet, by January 31, 2014, they still had not been supplied. (See Jan. 31, 2014 Tr. 5). At the January 31, 2014 conference, in light of defendants’ continued delinquency — “endless default,” as we put it then— we explained to counsel that “[i]t may be time for a default motion or other sanctions motion.” (Id.). We set a briefing' schedule for the motion and expressed that “unless something has dramatically changed by then the hammer will fall.” (Id.). And we pressed counsel to communicate our message to his clients. (Id.). On multiple occasions, we have warned defendants of the consequences of their continued non-compliance. Plaintiffs’ two motions for default also unequivocally placed defendants on notice that they were being targeted for default. Accord Coach, Inc. v. O’Brien, 2012 WL 1255276, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2012) (“Moreover, given [plaintiffs] Motion for Default Judgment, [defendant] has been on notice for months of [plaintiffs] intention to proceed with this matter to default proceedings should she fail to engage in the litigation.”). Plaintiffs assert that, “[g]iven the totality of the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the DEFENDANTS were fully aware that a default judgment could, and in all likelihood, would be imposed against the DEFENDANTS.” (Pls.’ Mem. 12). We agree. v. Prejudice We now turn to “the extent of the prejudice visited on the discovering party by its adversary.” Local Union 40, 2014 WL 61443, at *3; see also S. New England, 624 F.3d at 148-49 (citing cases), Briese Lichttechnik, 2011 WL 280815, at *8, Martinez, 2008 WL 482869, at *4. Here, a probing analysis of the underlying, unproduced discovery is not itself necessary to find prejudice. In various contexts, courts regularly equate prejudice and undue delay. See, e.g., Alaimo v. Automotive Consulting, 2010 WL 2884711, *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2010) (“prejudice [ ] always attends delay”); Robertson v. Doe, 2008 WL 2519894, *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008) (“When a defendant hinders the discovery of relevant information, the plaintiff suffers prejudice as a result of an involuntary delay in prosecuting its action.”); see also Harris v. Scadiero, 94 Fed.Appx. 860, 861 (2d Cir.2004) (“A presumption of prejudice is appropriate where the plaintiffs delay was prolonged.”); LeSane, 239 F.3d at 210. And we have already recounted the length and nature of the delays inflicted upon plaintiffs by defendants in this case. See supra pp. 265-66. Still, the prejudice at play here goes well beyond mere delay. According to plaintiffs, the documents that have not been provided with respect to Car-Win are as follows: (1) invoices from twenty [20] different projects where CAR-WIN performed iron work within the UNIONS’ work jurisdiction; (2) payroll records from 2008 to 2012; (3) 2009 Quarter 2 tax records; (4) 2010 Quarter 4 payroll tax returns; (5) banking documents and account information from 2008 to present; (6) CAR-WIN’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, shareholder meeting minutes and share ownership reports; (7) W-2 Forms for 2009, 2011 and 2012; (8) CAR-WIN’s balance sheet [f]or 2008 to present; (9) CAR-WIN’s general ledger for FY 2010 to FY 2013; (10) profit and loss statements for 2010 to 2012; (11) Field time sheets designating project/job location; (12) CAR-WIN advertisements or bids; and (13) Agreements with service providers from 2008 to the present. (Id. at ¶ 17). Similarly, the documents that have not been provided with respect to CRV are as follows: (1) 2008 balance sheet; (2) 2008 to 2009 profit and loss statement; (3) tax records for 2008, 2011 and 2012; (4) Capital One bank account records; (5) a signed and executed Operating Agreement; (6) certified payrolls for every prevailing wage project performed within the UNIONS’ work jurisdiction from 2008 to the present; (7) filed time sheets showing job locations, cash journals (including its cash receipt journals, cash disbursement journals, sale journals and petty cash journals), its job cost records showing accumulated labor costs and billings, job billing invoices and requisitions, and its job folders and work reported from 2008 to the present; (8) W-2 Forms from 2008 to the present; (9) documents reflecting the performance of iron work CRV subcontracted to another company in the UNIONS’ work jurisdiction from 2008 to the present; and (10) Agreements between CRV and its service providers from 2008 to the present. (Id. at ¶ 19). In the motion papers before us, plaintiffs explain precisely how the insufficiency of this document production hinders their ability to prosecute their case: The majority of the documents that have not been produced by the DEFENDANTS are material and necessary to proving Plaintiffs’ claims that: (1) CRV is the alter-ego and successor employer of CAR-WIN; (2) CRV and CAR-WIN constitute a single employer; (3) CRV was incorporated to avoid CAR-WIN’s obligations under Trust Agreements and Collective Bargaining Agreements with the Plaintiffs; and (4) CRV is liable to the Plaintiffs [ ] for failure to pay wages, failure to make fringe benefit contributions and failure to employ UNION members in their work jurisdiction. (4th Shotwell Decl. at ¶ 16; see also id. at ¶ 20, 23-24). None of this is new, however. The positions of the parties are the same as they were during the last round of motion practice: Plaintiffs seek documents that defendants claim do not exist or have never existed. (See Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 [docket no. 52] at ¶ 3). In our January 2, 2014 order, we acknowledged that a genuine inability to produce documents responsive to requests does not automatically warrant a default judgment — hence our avoidance at that stage of imposing a default and our ordering the provision of affidavits or declarations describing defendants’ document retention policies and specific actions undertaken to locate the requested documents, along with the depositions of the affiants or declarants that would have followed. (See Order dated Jan. 2, 2013 pp. 10-12). Defendants’ refusal to follow our instructions undermines their assertion that they have truly provided all they have, returning plaintiffs to the untenable position of having to litigate a case based on documents that have been withheld from them and that may or may not exist. Moreover, to further emphasize the prejudice that plaintiffs are facing, we address two arguments made to us in the parties’ most recent memoranda, one by plaintiffs and the other by defendants. First, plaintiffs alert us to the following: Between the date on which plaintiffs’ supplementary papers were due on their first motion for default and the date on which we issued our order on that motion, plaintiffs’ counsel deposed Mr. Tom Carroll, the president and sole shareholder of Car-Win. (4th Shotwell Decl. ¶ 8; see also Ex. A p. 4 to 3d Shotwell Deck). An excerpt of that deposition is included as an exhibit to the declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel. (See Ex. 7 to 4th Shotwell Decl.). As counsel phrases it, “[a]t his deposition, Mr. Carroll denied ever reviewing the discovery produced by CAR-WIN in this action and, in fact, identified inaccuracies in CAR-WIN’s first narrative response to the Demands.” (4th Shotwell Decl. ¶ 8). Indeed, at the deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Carroll about a certain list of responses to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (See Ex. 7 to 4th Shotwell Decl. at p. 4). This was a document that Mr. Carroll himself had signed. (See Ex. A p. 4 to 3d Shotwell Decl.). Yet, when pressed at the deposition, he professed not to know who had prepared it or who had asked him to sign. (Ex. 7 to 4th Shotwell Decl. at p. 4). Moreover, he easily pointed out that at least one of the items he had listed as never having existed was, in fact, an extant document. (See Ex. 7 to 4th Shotwell Decl. at p. 4; Ex. A p. 4 ¶ 5 to 3d Shotwell Decl.). With this as context, the affidavits or declarations specifying defendants’ document retention policies and the nature of their searches for the allegedly unavailable documents would have been a lifeline of clarity for plaintiffs. Their absence is obviously highly prejudicial to plaintiffs. This brings us to our last point on the topic of prejudice. In defendants’ attorney’s most recent declaration, he takes issue with the following language from plaintiffs’ motion papers: “[T]he majority of the documents that have not been produced by the Defendants are material and necessary to proving the Plaintiffs’ claims.” (Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 [docket no. 52] at ¶ 7). On this front, defendants’ counsel makes the startling assertion that “I have never heard of one side requiring proofs from the other to prove their case? I did not realize that the Defendants are required to assist the plaintiffs in meeting their bur-dent ] ... Defendants are under no obligation to assist the Plaintiffs in proving their case.” (Id.). This assertion is truly astonishing. Defendants’ counsel appears to forget that “[t]he purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) Advisory Committee Note [1946 Amendment] at Subdivision (b) (West 2014); Asante-Addae v. Sodexo, Inc., 2014 WL 2013443, *3 (D.Conn. May 16 2014); United States v. Int’l Business Machines Corp., 68 F.R.D. 315, 316 (S.D.N.Y.1975). The Supreme Court has been unequivocal in this respect: The various instruments of discovery now serve ... as a device for ascertaining the facts, or information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative to those issues. Thus civil trials in the federal courts no longer need be carried on in the dark. The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). Purposefully limiting one’s adversary’s access to discoverable information is undoubtedly prejudicial, even to the extent that this information “assist[s] the Plaintiffs in proving their case.” (Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 at ¶ 7). C. Defendants’ Additional Arguments Against Default Defendants oppose this motion for reasons beyond those directly responsive to plaintiffs’ factor-based arguments. They also suggest, somewhat disjointedly, (1) that any current delays are due specifically to plaintiffs’ inaction, (2) that plaintiffs’ own conduct during discovery justifies whatever non-compliance defendants . are being accused of, and (3) that even if defendants have not been entirely compliant with their obligations, their partial compliance should save them from default. (See Opp. Mem. 2-4). We reject each of these arguments and address them below, i. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Novr-Compliance with the January 2, 2014 Order As to the first point, defendants repeatedly cite our January 2, 2014 order and accuse plaintiffs of having defied our instructions. In doing so, defendants seemingly read our order to be saying only that we were permitting plaintiffs to take depositions of those with knowledge of defendants’ document retention policies and search for the documents at issue. (See Opp. Mem. 1, 3, 4; Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶ 3). Defendants write as follows: As to the Court’s January 2, 2014 Order the Defendants have been and continue to be available to be deposed with regard to the alleged outstanding discovery demands ... However, plaintiffs’ must serve notices to depose along with the Court’s January 2, 2014 Order for the Defendants to comply[,] e-mails requesting mutually convenient dates/ times do not suffice. (Opp. Mem. 3). Defendants go on to quote Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state that “Plaintiffs never abided by said rule in conjunction with the Court’s January 2, 2014 Order.” (Id.). And defendants repeat this refrain over and over. (See, e.g., id. at 1, 4; Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶ 3). In his declaration, defendants’ counsel frames this argument as follows: “[P]laintiffs have been free to depose CRV and Car-Win with regard to the alleged outstanding discovery and it is certainly not the Defendants!’] fault that plaintiffs have sat on their hands.” (Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶ 3; see also id. at ¶ 5). Our January 2, 2014 order, however, was eminently clear: Defendants were required to provide the affidavits or declarations within one jveek of the issuance of the order and, subsequent to defendants’ compliance, “plaintiffs [were] authorized to take the deposition of any affiants or declarants.” (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 p. 10). We explicitly stated that “[a]ny such deposition is to be conducted within one week after receipt of the required affidavits or declarations.” (Id.). It is difficult to know what to make of defendants’ argument on this point. Taking defendants’ (and defendants’ counsel’s) confused statements in a vacuum, it appears that defendants misread our order to mean that they could do nothing and wait for plaintiffs to formally notice certain depositions. However, in light of both the explicit language of the order and the full record before us, this is, at best, a wholly unreasonable interpretation! At worst, and more realistically understood, it is a bad-faith attempt at masking their deliberate and willful noncompliance with our order. Again, the text of our order was explicit. Moreover, we discussed this requirement with counsel — the very same individual who drafted defendants’ memorandum in opposition to the current motion and the attached declaration — and addressed the requirement of the affidavits or declarations on the record. (See Jan. 31, 2014 Tr. 5). Plaintiffs made repeated and clear references to the nature of our order in their memorandum in support of default. (See, e.g., Pis.’ Mem. 9). And, perhaps most bizarrely, defendants’ counsel’s declaration includes a seemingly self-contradictory reference to the affidavits, which again reveals that he understood the substance of our January 2, 2014 order. (See Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶ 5). Whatever the explanation for defendants’ apparent confusion on this issue, one thing is abundantly clear: Defendants — not plaintiffs — are at fault for the lack of subsequent noticed depositions. ii. Plaintiffs’ Alleged General Notv-Compliance with Discovery Obligations Defendants’ next justification for noncompliance is as meritless as it is familiar: that plaintiffs’ alleged discovery failures should affect our current assessment of defendants’ own misconduct. (See, e.g., Opp. Mem. 1, 3, 4; Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶¶ 3, 7, 10-12). On this point, we stress that “[discovery is not equity: one party’s non.compliance with discovery requirements does not excuse the other’s failure to comply. Each party’s obligation is independent.” Gropper v. David Ellis Real Estate, L.P., 2014 WL 518234, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2014); see also John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 145, 148 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (“[I]t is well-established that a party cannot unilaterally refuse to fulfill its discovery obligations as retaliation for another party’s discovery violations.”); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Maffei 2006 WL 2709835, *5 n. 21 (D.Alaska Sept. 20, 2006) (“The court does not consider ‘tit-for-tat’ objections to discovery to be legitimate.”). Indeed, “[t]he federal rules ... contain no provision authorizing a litigant to behave only as well as his opponent.” Acushnet Co. v. Birdie Golf Ball Co., 166 F.R.D. 42, 43 (S.D.Fla.1996). Defendants lob numerous accusations at plaintiffs, all of which essentially amount to complaining about plaintiffs’ own withholding of discovery sought by defendants: “[Plaintiffs have not provided any discovery with respect to the Defendants’ discovery demand.” (Opp. Mem. 1). “[P]laintiffs [ ] have disregarded the rules of procedure as they have failed to provide any documents pursuant to the Defendants’ document demand.” (Id. at 3). “[Plaintiffs [] failed and acted in bad faith by simply objecting to the Defendants’ discovery demand and in turn providing nothing.” (Id.). “The only slothful and evasive approach to discovery has been and remains plaintiffs’ objections to the Defendants’ discovery demands and their failure to provide any documents whatsoever.” (Id. at 4; see also Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 ¶¶ 11-12). At the very end of his declaration, defendants’ counsel directs us to plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ document requests and correctly points out that “plaintiffs objected to each and every demand.” (See Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 at ¶ 11 & Ex. C). Then, counsel concludes by stating, “[f]or the for[e]going reasons it is respectfully requested that plaintiffs’ motion is denied and moreover that plaintiffs’ are compelled to provide answers to Defendants’ discovery demands.” (Id. at ¶ 12). Even if we assume, for the sake of this argument, that plaintiffs’ objections to defendants’ discovery demands were unreasonable, those objections have no bearing on defendants’ own behavior and are irrelevant to the analysis here. As is abundantly clear from the decisions mentioned above, see supra p. 272 and, indeed, from the very nature of our focused adversarial system, the proper way for defendants to deal with plaintiffs’ behavior in discovery was to make applications to the court requesting an order to compel production, sanction the lack thereof, or move for some other directed relief. Indeed, we note that, during the pen-dency of plaintiffs’ first motion for a default judgment, defendants also raised plaintiffs’ objections to defendants’ discovery demands. (See, e.g., Decl. of George Christopoulos dated July 2, 2013 at ¶¶ 4-5). And in our January 2, 2014 order, we stated as follows: We note that at several points defendants allude in their papers to asserted failures by plaintiffs to supply discovery. We have received no application by defendants for relief from any shortfalls in plaintiffs’ performance, and we decline to address this issue since defendants have not properly, or timely, raised it. Defendants also should expect no further adjustments of the discovery deadlines to accommodate last-minute discovery efforts by them. (Order dated Jan. 2, 2014 p. 13 n. 2) (citations omitted). Defendants’ apparent attempt to wedge an application to compel plaintiffs’ production into a single line of a declaration in opposition to the current motion (see Decl. of George Christopoulos dated Feb. 21, 2014 at ¶ 12) is neither remotely sufficient as a stand-alone request for relief nor cause to justify defendants’ own failures to produce what was required of them. iii. Relevance of Defendants’ Partial “Compliance” Finally, we note that the bulk of defendants’ memorandum in opposition to default is taken u