Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 552

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TREATING SPECIFIED FACTS AS ESTABLISHED (Doc. No. 506 ) signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/24/2020. (Gonzales, V)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL IOANE, et al,

9
10
11

Plaintiffs
v.
KENT SPJUTE, et al,

12

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-0620 AWI EPG
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER
TREATING SPECIFIED FACTS AS
ESTABLISHED
(Doc. 506)

13
14
15

I. History
The current Plaintiffs are Michael Ioane Sr. and Shelly Ioane who lived at 1521 Fruitland

16

Ave., Atwater, CA. They are a married couple involved in tax disputes with the United States.

17

Kent Spjute, Jean Noll, Jeff Hodge, Brian Applegate, and Michelle Casarez are Internal Revenue

18

Service agents (“Federal Agents”). Based on the affidavit of Kent Spjute, the United States was

19

able to obtain a search warrant for Plaintiffs’ residence to collect records related to Steven and

20

Louise Booth, clients of Michael Ioane Sr. The search was carried out by Federal Agents

21

(including the previously named individuals) on June 8, 2006. This search forms the basis for the

22

claims in this suit.

23

Michael Ioane Sr. and Shelly Ioane, together with former plaintiffs Glen Halliday, Ashley

24

Ioane, and Michael Ioane Jr., filed suit against the named Federal Agents and the United States on

25

April 20, 2007 and a First Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. Docs. 1 and 39. The case was

26

stayed pending resolution of a criminal case against Michael Ioane Sr. for tax fraud conspiracy,

27

based in part on the evidence seized during the search. Crim. Case. No. 09-0142 LJO. Michael

28

Ioane Sr. was convicted on October 3, 2011 after a jury trial. He appealed the conviction, but it

1

was affirmed. Michael Ioane Sr. has filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the

2

meantime, the stay was lifted in this case. Doc. 107.

3

Plaintiffs Michael Ioane Sr. and Shelly Ioane originally pursued several causes of action

4

against the United States and the Federal Agents. Through several rounds of motions, the only

5

claims left are Fourth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Hodge and

6

Applegate and Fourth Amendment violation of bodily privacy claims against Defendant Noll.

7

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hodge and Applegate pointed guns at the heads of

8

Plaintiffs and that Defendant Noll insisted upon entering the restroom with Plaintiff Shelly Ioane

9

to witness her relieve herself.

10

In the last summary judgment motion, Defendant Noll sought qualified immunity for her

11

actions in monitoring Plaintiff Shelly Ioane. Doc. 369. Qualified immunity was denied. Doc. 384.

12

In response, Defendant Noll filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Doc. 394. Meanwhile,

13

Defendants filed a motion to bifurcate the claims against Defendant Noll from the claims against

14

Defendants Hodge and Applegate, or in the alternative, to sever the claims. Doc. 398. Plaintiffs

15

opposed the motion. Doc. 401. The request for bifurcation was granted. Doc. 405. The Ninth

16

Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Doc. 497.

17
18

Plaintiff Shelly Ioane filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant Noll.
Doc. 506. Defendant Noll opposes the motion. Doc. 508.

19
20
21

II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine

22

issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Fortyune v.

24

American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004). The party seeking summary

25

judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of

26

identifying the portions of the declarations (if any), pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate an

27

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986);

28

Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). A fact is “material” if it
2

1

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

2

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Savings

3

Assn, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002). A dispute is “genuine” as to a material fact if there is

4

sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v.

5

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178,

6

1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

7

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant must

8

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the movant.

9

Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Where the non-moving

10

party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may prevail by presenting

11

evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or by merely pointing

12

out that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-moving party’s

13

claim. See James River Ins. Co. v. Schenk, P.C., 519 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2008). If a moving

14

party fails to carry its burden of production, then “the non-moving party has no obligation to

15

produce anything, even if the non-moving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion.”

16

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). If the

17

moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that

18

a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith

19

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The opposing party cannot “‘rest upon the mere

20

allegations or denials of [its] pleading’ but must instead produce evidence that ‘sets forth specific

21

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515

22

F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008).

23

The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences that

24

may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party.

25

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Stegall v. Citadel Broad, Inc., 350

26

F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the

27

opposing party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn.

28

See Juell v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 456 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1149 (E.D. Cal. 2006); UMG Recordings,
3

1

Inc. v. Sinnott, 300 F.Supp.2d 993, 997 (E.D. Cal. 2004). “A genuine issue of material fact does

2

not spring into being simply because a litigant claims that one exists or promises to produce

3

admissible evidence at trial.” Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, 299 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 2002);

4

see Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007); Bryant v. Adventist

5

Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, a “motion for summary

6

judgment may not be defeated ...by evidence that is ‘merely colorable’ or ‘is not significantly

7

probative.’” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); Hardage v. CBS

8

Broad. Inc., 427 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the court has the discretion in

9

appropriate circumstances to consider materials that are not properly brought to its attention, but

10

the court is not required to examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of

11

material fact where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references.

12

See Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003). If the non-

13

moving party fails to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, the

14

moving party is entitled to summary judgment. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz

15

Companies, 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000).

16
17

III. Analysis

18

Shelly Ioane seeks partial summary judgment to “establish the fact of the bathroom

19

incident: That on June 8, 2006, Agent Noll insisted on accompanying Mrs. Ioane into the

20

bathroom, ordered her to lift up her dress and pull down her underwear, thereby exposing her

21

naked body, and then watched as Mrs. Ioane relieved herself. Furthermore, based on the

22

undisputed facts, this Court should hold that Agent Noll violated Mrs. Ioane’s right to bodily

23

privacy.” Doc. 506-1, 11:16-20. In opposition to the motion, Noll has provided a declaration in

24

which she denies escorting Shelly Ioane to the restroom altogether. Doc. 511, 5:15-24. Noll’s

25

declaration on its own would constitute a genuine material dispute which would preclude grant of

26

summary judgment. Shelly Ioane asks that this declaration be disregarded as a “sham affidavit”

27

for contradicting Noll’s prior sworn statements. Doc. 506-1, 8:21-11:2. Noll opposes the request

28

arguing that her statements have not been contradictory. Doc. 514, 11:11-12:21. Whether or not
4

1
2

Noll’s recent declaration may be considered is dispositive to the motion.
“The general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a party cannot create an issue of fact by an

3

affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony. If a party who has been examined at length

4

on deposition could raise an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting his own

5

prior testimony, this would greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for

6

screening out sham issues of fact.” Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir.

7

1991), citations and quotations omitted. A declaration or affidavit will not be disregarded unless

8

two conditions are met. First, “We conclude that the Foster-Radobenko rule does not

9

automatically dispose of every case in which a contradictory affidavit is introduced to explain

10

portions of earlier deposition testimony. Rather, the Radobenko court was concerned with ‘sham’

11

testimony that flatly contradicts earlier testimony in an attempt to ‘create’ an issue of fact and

12

avoid summary judgment. Therefore, before applying the Radobenko sanction, the district court

13

must make a factual determination that the contradiction was actually a ‘sham.’” Kennedy v.

14

Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67 (9th Cir. 1991). “Second, our cases have emphasized

15

that the inconsistency between a party’s deposition testimony and subsequent affidavit must be

16

clear and unambiguous to justify striking the affidavit.” Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d

17

989, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2009).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

In the present case, there is a discrepancy between Noll’s past statements and her current
statement but the discrepancy is ambiguous. Noll now states:
I stayed outside for the duration of the morning. I have no recollection whatsoever
of escorting Mrs. Ioane to the restroom, and I do not recall being alone with Mrs.
Ioane at any time during the search. Had I accompanied Mrs. Ioane into the
bathroom, I would remember it. I did not do so. As I have previously stated in
earlier declarations, it is standard procedure to escort an individual to the restroom
during the execution of a search warrant. It is also standard procedure for an agent
to monitor an individual while they are in the restroom. In some instances a female
agent may be inside the restroom in order to monitor a female using the restroom.
In many instances the agent will maintain the individual in their field of vision in
order to monitor her activity. But to be clear, if an agent did escort Mrs. Ioane to
the restroom and go inside of the restroom, that agent was someone other than me.

26

Doc. 511, 5:15-24. In this statement, Noll unequivocally says that she was not the person who

27

accompanied Shelly Ioane to the bathroom. In the past, she had not directly affirmed or denied

28

that fact and left it ambiguous.
5

1

Noll’s first declaration from December 2007 only addressed the facts surrounding the

2

excessive force claim and did not include any detail about escorting Shelley Ioane to the

3

bathroom. Doc. 35-7. Noll’s second declaration in November 2012 stated:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

It is standard procedure to escort an individual to the restroom during the execution
of a search warrant. It is also standard procedure for an agent to monitor an
individual while they are in the restroom. With males, for instance, the door to the
restroom is almost always left open. While females often are afforded more
privacy, in some instances a female agent may be inside the restroom in order to
monitor a female using the restroom. In many instances the agent will maintain the
individual in their peripheral vision in order to monitor her activity. This is not
only for the safety of the agents, but also to ensure that an individual does not harm
themselves with medication or other substances that may be found in the bathroom.
Doc. 131-10, 2:25-3:6. Noll’s third declaration in February 2016 stated:
9. I do not recall escorting Ms. Ioane to the restroom and do not recall being alone
with her at any time.
….
11. It is standard procedure to escort an individual to the restroom during the
execution of a search warrant. It is also standard procedure for an agent to monitor
an individual while they are in the restroom. In some instances a female agent may
be inside the restroom in order to monitor a female using the restroom. In many
instances the agent will maintain the individual in their field of vision in order to
monitor her activity.
Doc. 369-3, 3:7-16. In a February 2013 response to request for admissions, Noll stated
Request No. 8: Admit or Deny that Shelly Ioane was escorted to the restroom by
I.R.S. Agent(s) whom required her to disrobe and urinate while she/they watched.
Response: The Federal Defendant objects to this request for admission because it is
a compound request. Subject to and without waiving her general and specific
objections, the Federal Defendant denies the admission for lack of personal
knowledge.
Request No. 9: Admit or Deny that while the violation of Shelly Ioane’s bodily
privacy took place the agent(s) watching her urinate were armed with gun(s).
Response: The Federal Defendant objects to this request for admission because it is
a compound request and calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without
waiving her general and specific objections, the Federal Defendant denies this
request for admission for lack of knowledge.
Doc. 506-5, 5:5-16. Similarly, in her February 2014 response to interrogatories, Noll stated:

27

Interrogatory No. 6: Explain why Shelly Ioane was escorted to the restroom, forced
to undress in the presence of the agent escorting her and then forced to use the toilet
in her escort’s presence.

28

Response: The Federal Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as it is compound
6

1
2
3
4

and assumes facts that are not established by the finder of fact. Subject to and
without waiving the general and specific objections, the Federal Defendant has no
personal knowledge of whether Shelly Ioane was escorted to the restroom or not,
nor what may have occurred at such time.
Doc. 506-4, 5:5-10.
The case law applying this doctrine appears to require explicit, direct contradiction of a

5

form that leaves the firm conclusion that one of the statements is false. See, e.g. Pavel v. Univ. of

6

Or., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69102, *18 (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2017) (“the two statements do not clearly

7

and unambiguously conflict because plaintiff’s deposition testimony speaks to defendants’ offer of

8

some time to respond and plaintiffs affidavit speaks to assertion that he did not have sufficient time

9

to meaningfully respond”); Naff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86854, at

10

*13-14 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2016) (“Defendant asserts the classification of items as ‘gifts’ to her

11

children, including CDs, DVDs, and game consoles indicates the declaration is a sham. Defendant

12

contends that Mrs. Naff ‘Declared under Penalty of Perjury to the United States Bankruptcy Court

13

for the Eastern District of California that she made no such gifts.’ Notably, in the declaration Mrs.

14

Naff does not indicate who the gifts were from, whether from her, her husband or Mrs. Naff’s

15

father—who gave her ‘several hundred dollars, if not more’ each month for several years—or

16

when the gifts were received by her children. Thus, the evidence is ambiguous such that there is

17

not a clear conflict between the declaration and the representation made to the Bankruptcy

18

Court”); Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

19

83908, *29 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) (“at his deposition, Smith testified that it was ‘not [his]

20

custom and practice in…35 years of experience requiring a down payment.’ Defendants argue

21

Smith’s later statement in the declaration that he ‘saw no reason to object to the deposit’ is

22

‘inconsistent’ with the prior testimony. However, there is no conflict between the two statements.

23

The fact that he chose to accept a down payment that was offered by the defendants does not

24

contradict his practice of not requiring a down payment”); Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express,

25

Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180061, *12-13 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2014) (“Plaintiffs object to Mr.

26

Alvarez’s statement that STE’s ‘[safety] meetings are not mandatory, are infrequent, and drivers

27

suffer no repercussions if they do not attend.’ Mr. Alvarez stated in his deposition that the Drivers

28

attended a safety meeting that occurred on January 8, 2011. Mr. Alvarez’s later testimony in his
7

1

declaration does not contradict that assertion. In his declaration, Mr. Alvarez is clearly referring to

2

safety meetings in general, over the course of several years, whereas his deposition testimony is

3

limited to one meeting in January 2011”). In determining what constitutes direct contradiction, all

4

reasonable inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party. See Bautista v.

5

Transoceanic Cable Ship Co. LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187587, *10 (D. Haw. Oct. 29, 2019)

6

(“Viewing this in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the court must at this stage, such

7

testimony is not entirely contradicted nor inconsistent with his Declaration stating…”).

8

Making inferences in favor of Noll, the non-moving party, her earlier statements assert that

9

she did not recall escorting Shelly Ioane to the bathroom or know if that was done on June 8, 2006

10

but that standard police procedure would have been to observe her while she used the facilities.

11

Noll’s recent statement directly states that she did not recall escorting Shelly Ioane and that she is

12

confident she would remember if she had done so. Taken strictly on their face, these statements

13

do not directly contradict each other. A key fact is that Noll has not been deposed as part of this

14

case; she has not had to answer direct questions about whether she escorted Shelly Ioane to the

15

bathroom. Significantly, “a district court may find a declaration to be a sham when it contains

16

facts that the affiant previously testified he could not remember.” Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d

17

1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). But, we do not have a prior statement in which Noll asserted that she

18

could not remember what happened. Her prior statement is that “I do not recall escorting Ms.

19

Ioane to the restroom.” Doc. 369-3, 3:7-8. Shelly Ioane seems to assume that the statement means

20

that Noll does not recall if she escorted Shelly Ioane to the restroom. However, the statement

21

could also mean that Noll does not recall doing so. The latter interpretation is supported by Noll’s

22

statement that “the Federal Defendant has no personal knowledge of whether Shelly Ioane was

23

escorted to the restroom or not, nor what may have occurred at such time.” Doc. 506-4, 5:9-10.

24

Noll’s recent statement can be seen as an elaboration on her prior statements. When a subject is

25

not explored during deposition, a later declaration that provides additional detail on that subject

26

does not constitute a contradiction. See McMahon v. Valenzuela, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129457,

27

*25 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2015) (“The fact that McMahon ‘at no point in time [during her

28

deposition] indicated that any threats were made to her by Officer Valenzuela’ does not render
8

1

more recent statements in her declaration regarding such alleged threats ‘contradictory’ or a

2

‘sham’”).
Shelly Ioane’s motion for partial summary judgment to establish “That on June 8, 2006,

3
4

Agent Noll insisted on accompanying Mrs. Ioane into the bathroom, ordered her to lift up her

5

dress and pull down her underwear, thereby exposing her naked body, and then watched as Mrs.

6

Ioane relieved herself” is completely dependent on establishing that Noll’s recent declaration is a

7

sham affidavit. As the declaration does not merit that designation, Shelly Ioane’s motion must be

8

denied.

9
10
11

IV. Order
Shelly Ioane’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2020
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9