Smith v. Weiss et al
Filing
58
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending dismissal with prejudice for bad faith conduct 48 , 49 , 50 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/10/2020. Referred to Judge NONE; Objections to F&R due within 21-Days.(Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
WEISS, et al.,
15
Case No. 1:18-cv-00852-NONE-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE FOR BAD FAITH CONDUCT
(ECF Nos. 48, 49, 50)
Defendants.
TWENTY–ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
16
17
18
19
I.
Procedural History
Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
On May 23, 2018, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations in Smith v.
21
Chanelo (“Smith I”), Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-LJO-BAM (PC), recommending that: (1) the
22
action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint only as to the excessive force claim against
23
Defendants Sotelo, P. Chanelo, D. Wattree, K. Hunt, L. Castro, A. Gonzalez, E. Ramirez, and R.
24
Rodriguez, on March 13, 2013; (2) the Court sever the misjoined claims, into three separate cases
25
and such cases be opened, for excessive force for the incidents of: September 9, 2013 against
26
Defendant D. Knowlton; November 15, 2013 against Defendants E. Weiss, O. Hurtado, and F.
27
Zavleta; and February 6, 2014 against Defendants D. Gibbs and D. Hardy; (3) Plaintiff’s
28
improperly joined claims of February 4, 2015, February 25, 2015, and September 2, 2015 be
1
1
dismissed without prejudice to re-filing; and (4) the remaining claims and defendants be
2
dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. Smith I, ECF No. 16. The Court adopted the
3
findings and recommendations in full on June 20, 2018, and the misjoined claims were opened as
4
separate actions. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the instant action was opened as Smith v. Weiss,
5
Case No. 1:18-cv-00852-LJO-BAM (PC), and proceeds against Defendants E. Weiss, O. Hurtado,
6
and F. Zavleta for the excessive force incident of November 15, 2013.
7
On July 8, 2019, Defendants Hurtado, Weiss, and Zavleta filed an answer to the
8
complaint. (ECF No. 19.) The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order on July 15, 2019.
9
(ECF No. 21.) On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint and lodged a
10
second amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) The Court denied the motion on October 1, 2019,
11
finding that the motion to amend was brought in bad faith. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff followed with
12
two motions: Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order to quash his video conference deposition, (ECF
13
No. 23), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment/Order which had precluded Plaintiff from
14
filing an amended complaint to rejoin all claims previously severed, (ECF No. 28). On March 2,
15
2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s two motions finding that Plaintiff had acted in bad faith in seeking,
16
again, relief from the Court’s order that Plaintiff could not amend the complaint to rejoin the severed
17
defendants and claims. As to the protective order to preclude his deposition, the Court stated:
18
“Plaintiff is informed that he is required to appear at a properly noticed deposition and respond to
19
questions by Defendants’ counsel.” (ECF No. 38, p. 4.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
20
by the District Judge of the order that Plaintiff must attend a deposition. (ECF No. 41.) The District
21
Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion and found that Plaintiff was obligated to appear for his deposition.
22
(ECF No. 42.) The Court concluded: “plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of his deposition
23
may also result in the imposition of terminating sanctions, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court
24
order and failure to cooperate in discovery.” (ECF No. 42, p. 8.)
25
On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for relief from judgment or order
26
regarding the Court’s orders rejecting his prior motions to be exempted from a deposition, as well
27
as a renewed motion for a protective order prohibiting Defendants from taking Plaintiff’s
28
deposition. (ECF Nos. 48, 49.) On September 2, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
2
1
includes their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and motion for relief from
2
judgment or order. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants seek terminating sanctions.
3
Currently before the Court are three motions: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from
4
Judgment/Order requiring Plaintiff to attend a deposition in this case, (ECF No. 48), Plaintiff’s
5
motion for a protective order regarding his deposition, (ECF No. 49), and Defendants’ Motion to
6
Dismiss, (ECF No. 50).
7
II.
Overview of the Motions
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief of Judgment or Order
8
A.
9
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief for Judgment/Order challenges this Court’s order denying
10
Plaintiff’s request for a protective order from having Plaintiff’s deposition taken. (ECF No. 48.)
11
Plaintiff requests relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Plaintiff says that a deposition of him is
12
“needless” and unnecessary: “[a] deposition being conducted of me by the defendants for
13
information in concern to the events surround their illegal use of force against me on November
14
15, 2013 is needless as this is an unduly burdensome vehicle for discovery of facts that are easily
15
obtainable by the defendant from official records on filed for this matter, my previous pleading
16
before the Court but more importantly the laws.” (ECF No. 48, p. 3 of 4.) Plaintiff’s requested
17
relief is to be protected from participating in any deposition being held by defendants in this
18
matter. Id.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
19
B.
20
In like vein, Plaintiff moves for a protective order from having his deposition taken
21
because it is “futile” since he is entitled to “a ruling of judgment as a matter of law,” and having
22
his deposition taken by Defendants is “harassing.” (ECF No. 49, p. 3 of 64.) Plaintiff argues that
23
the Eighth Amendment protects him from excessive force and that his facts of what occurred
24
“clearly denote violating” the Eighth Amendment for the force disproportionate to the need.
25
Plaintiff then explains the factual errors that Defendants that made in violation of the Eighth
26
Amendment. (ECF No. 49, pp. 5–7.)
27
28
Plaintiff states that Defendants told Plaintiff that his deposition would be needed to
explore facts of the case for their defense and whether to bring a motion for failure to exhaust
3
1
administrative remedies. Plaintiff alleges he complied with administrative remedies and that
2
RVRs were issued against him for his purported assault of correctional officers. (ECF No. 49, pp.
3
8–12.) Plaintiff contends that defendants are prohibited from claiming an affirmative defense of
4
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF 49, p. 15.) Plaintiff states that these
5
facts warrant that he be protected from a “harassing” deposition.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions
6
C.
7
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff’s motions, (ECF No.
8
50), which is briefly summarized as follows. Defendants request terminating sanctions.
9
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has been repeatedly warned not to file repetitive and harassing
10
motions, yet he has filed two more repeat, bad faith motions. His motions to be protected from a
11
deposition have been previously denied and his current motions do not present any facts to excuse
12
him from being deposed.
13
The scheduling order allows the deposition of any incarcerated person. When Plaintiff
14
sought a protective order from being deposed, the Court denied the motion and cautioned Plaintiff
15
had defendants were entitled to take his deposition. In ruling on Plaintiff’s reconsideration of the
16
Magistrate Judge’s order denying protection from the deposition, the District Judge stated
17
“defendants are clearly entitled to take his deposition. Plaintiff is simply unreasonably refusing to
18
cooperate in that regard.” (ECF No. 50, p. 3.) Plaintiff has been adequately warned in this case
19
and also in Smith v. Chanelo, 1:16-cv-01356-NONE-BAM (PC), that he must submit to a
20
deposition.
21
Plaintiff has filed two more motions which are duplicative of previously rejected
22
arguments. He argues the deposition is futile, needless, burdensome and he is entitled to
23
judgment as a matter of law. The Court should deny the frivolous and repeat motions.
24
The Court should sanction Plaintiff by terminating this case. There are ample authorities
25
to dismiss. (ECF No. 50, pp. 8, 9.) Plaintiff has delayed this case, forced Defendants to forego a
26
deposition, Defendants are prejudiced, the Court has had to expend resources on multiple court
27
orders. No other sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff is proceeding pro per and has not
28
abided by the court orders. The only factor against dismissal is public policy favoring disposition
4
1
on the merits. However, Plaintiff is the party required to move the case forward and is
2
disregarding Court orders. Plaintiff’s bad faith motions should be denied and his refusal to
3
comply with Court orders should result in the case being dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
4
D.
5
Plaintiff states that he will not give a tit for tat response to Defendants’ motion but will
6
instead quote to the Court from the Court’s prior rulings and cite from the Federal Rules of Civil
7
Procedure. (ECF No. 55.)1 Plaintiff then quotes from the Court’s prior rulings and the Federal
8
Rules.
9
III.
10
11
Discussion
Throughout the history of this case, Plaintiff has had a cavalier attitude to court orders and
continues to refuse to abide with Court directives.
12
A.
13
The Court’s Sanction Authority
1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Court’s Inherent Authority
Rule 11 “provides for the imposition of sanctions when a filing is frivolous, legally
14
15
unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” Estate of
16
Blue v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997). “‘Frivolous filings’ are those
17
that are ‘both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.’” Buster v.
18
Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.,
19
929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). “The test for whether Rule 11 is violated does
20
not require a finding of subjective bad faith by the attorney or unrepresented party.” McMahon v.
21
Pier 39 Ltd. P’ship, No. C03-00251 CRB, 2003 WL 22939233, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2003).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court does not find it productive to
summarize what is already contained in either the Court’s docket or the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff does not make any new arguments as to why his deposition should not be
permitted. It is significant to note that at no point in the lengthy opposition does Plaintiff agree he
will comply with his discovery obligations and attend a deposition. (At this point in these
voluminous proceedings, given Plaintiff’s conduct, the Court notes that it would not accept
Plaintiff acquiescence that he would have his deposition taken.) Plaintiff restates his position that
the deposition is unnecessary, a fishing expedition, and meant to harass him. He contends his
arguments are sufficient to grant a protective order. (ECF No. 55, pp. 4, 5.) Plaintiff, in turn,
asks for sanctions against Defendants for seeking his deposition.
5
1
1
In addition to Rule 11, courts also have the “inherent power to levy sanctions, including
2
attorneys’ fees, for ‘willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the losing party has acted in
3
bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.2d 989, 991
4
(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)). Under the
5
court’s inherent power, sanctions are only available “if the court specifically finds bad faith or
6
conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Id. at 994. Conduct that is tantamount to bad faith includes
7
“recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an
8
improper purpose.” Id. District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n
9
the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . .
10
11
dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
In addition, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, this Court has the authority to impose
12
any appropriate sanction to curtail abusive litigation tactics. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of
13
counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds
14
for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
15
inherent power of the Court.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to
16
follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838
17
(1995); Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., Inc., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)
18
(district courts enjoy “broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules”).
19
Individuals proceeding in pro per are bound by the Court’s Local Rules just the same as licensed
20
attorneys. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an
21
attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other
22
applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing
23
in propria persona.”).
24
2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
25
Depositions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which states in pertinent
26
part that “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of
27
court . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). A failure to participate in discovery is in violation of Fed.
28
R. Civ. P. 30 and 37. Under Rule 30(d)(2), the court may impose sanctions for impeding,
6
1
2
delaying, or frustrating the fair examination of the deponent.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) authorizes the court “to impose a wide range of
3
sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing
4
those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court
5
may sanction the party by “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
6
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence,” “staying
7
further proceedings” until the party has complied with discovery requirements, and “dismissing
8
the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3) (incorporating sanctions
9
from Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi)).
10
Rule 37 allows for terminating sanctions that dismiss a plaintiff’s action where there has
11
been willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); Nat’l Hockey League v.
12
Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 640 (1976). “Disobedient conduct not shown to be
13
outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.”
14
B.
The Court Finds that Plaintiff Acted in Bad Faith
15
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse intentional non-compliance with the Federal
16
Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders. See Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th
17
Cir. 2000) (affirming sanction of dismissal, holding that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the
18
litigation rules as is a lawyer . . . .”); see also Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir.
19
1994) (holding that district court could not decline to impose any sanction for violation of Fed. R.
20
Civ. P. 11 simply because plaintiff was proceeding pro se).
21
Plaintiff has already been warned about filing repetitive, duplicative, and harassing filings.
22
He has filed numerous repetitive, misnamed, overlapping, and otherwise harassing filings in this
23
action. Both of Plaintiff’s current motions, the Motion for Relief from Judgment/Order requiring
24
Plaintiff to attend a deposition in this case, (ECF No. 48), and the Motion for a Protective Order
25
regarding his deposition, (ECF No. 49), were previously decided adversely to Plaintiff. Both of
26
these motions were previously addressed by multiple judges in this Court who unequivocally held
27
that Plaintiff must attend his deposition. The arguments he makes and has made in prior motions,
28
that “the taking of his deposition would be futile and constitute harassment,” has previously been
7
1
ruled on and soundly rejected: “The court rejects that argument in its entirety.” (ECF No. 42, p.
2
4.)
3
Yet despite clear orders and guidance from the Court, Plaintiff has again brought
4
repetitive motions on the same issue without any new arguments. He seeks to shirk his discovery
5
obligations to attend a deposition and instead requires that Defendants “take his word for it.”
6
Estate of Blue, 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997) (Frivolous filings are “those that are both
7
baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111
8
(1998). Plaintiff’s repeat motions waste the Court’s limited resources and delays the resolution of
9
this action. Defendants have also been forced to file numerous oppositions regarding Plaintiff’s
10
filings. Plaintiff was warned that filing additional baseless motions, needlessly multiplying the
11
proceedings, wasting judicial resources, or otherwise submitting filings was considered bad faith
12
or for the purpose of harassment, to which Plaintiff would be subject to sanctions. (See ECF No.
13
38, p. 7; ECF No. 42, p. 8.) “Rule 11 is intended to deter baseless filings in district court and
14
imposes a duty of ‘reasonable inquiry’ so that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in
15
fact, legally tenable, and not interposed for any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of S.
16
Cal. v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx
17
Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). Both of Plaintiff’s motions are baseless.
18
This is not the first time in this case, or in Plaintiff’s other cases, that the Court has found
19
Plaintiff has acted in bad faith. (See ECF No. 27, p. 4: “Given Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to
20
improperly join defendants and claims in a single action, and the Court’s repeated orders to the
21
contrary, the Court finds that the instant motion to amend is brought in bad faith;” ECF No. 38, p.
22
7: “Plaintiff is warned that filing additional baseless motions, needlessly multiplying the
23
proceedings, wasting judicial resources, or otherwise submitting filings in bad faith or for the
24
purpose of harassment, will subject a party to sanctions.”) He has been determined to be
25
“unreasonably refusing to cooperate” with his deposition, and was warned: “If plaintiff continues
26
to fail to cooperate with discovery, this action may be subject to terminating sanctions due to
27
plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to cooperate in discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
28
37(b)(2)(a)(v).” (ECF No. 42 p. 4.) In a companion case, Smith v. Chanelo, Case No. 1:16-cv8
1
01356-NONE-BAM (PC), on March 20, 2020, Plaintiff was told, “Plaintiff is reminded that his
2
discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit him to abdicate
3
his responsibility to attend and meaningfully participate in his deposition. Plaintiff is obligated to
4
allow Defendants to take his deposition, regardless of whether he believes that his complaint is
5
sufficient to warrant a ruling of summary judgment in his favor.” (Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-
6
NONE-BAM (PC), Doc. No. 58, p. 8.) Plaintiff was fully on notice not to file repetitive motions
7
and that he must attend his deposition.
8
9
There is no objective reasonable basis for Plaintiff to conclude that he was justified in
pursuing a protective order or not appearing for a deposition. See Bhambra v. True, No. 09–cv–
10
4685–CRB, 2010 WL 1758895, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2010) (where a party “pursues causes of
11
action for which there is no legal basis whatsoever,” sanctions may be warranted.) The continual
12
assertion of these claims is frivolous, and the Court concludes they are not filed for a proper
13
purpose. Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 1987)
14
(Groundless claims included in a pleading for purpose of harassment justify sanctions . . . even if
15
the entire pleading is not for an improper purpose.) Plaintiff’s conduct has been vexatious and
16
designed to improperly expand, prolong and complicate this case. Accordingly, the Court finds
17
that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith.
18
In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff's conduct in this case is obstructive and constitutes
19
willful disregard for the Court’s orders, abusive and bad faith litigation tactics, and the needless
20
multiplication of the proceedings. The Court next turns to whether terminating sanctions are
21
appropriate.
22
C.
Consideration of Factors Warranting Dismissal
23
In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court considers: (1) the public’s interest
24
in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
25
prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits; and
26
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.
27
1986). The amount of prejudice resulting from discovery violations and the availability of less
28
drastic sanctions are “key factors.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
9
1
The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation weighs in favor of dismissal.
2
The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation
3
always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, at
4
every turn, Plaintiff attempts to delay the proceedings, and deprive Defendants of their right to
5
take Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants are entitled to examine Plaintiff about the facts upon
6
which Plaintiff bases his claims. This case has been pending since 2018, and it should be a
7
relatively straightforward excessive force case. However, given Plaintiff's continued refusal to
8
comply with the Court’s order compelling discovery responses, the first factor weighs strongly in
9
favor of dismissal of this action.
10
The second factor focuses on whether a particular case has “consumed large amounts of [a
11
district] court’s valuable time that it could have devoted to other major and serious criminal and
12
civil cases on its docket.” See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended
13
(May 22, 1992) (“It is incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts’ power to manage their
14
dockets without being subject to the endless vexatious noncompliance of litigants like Ferdik.”)
15
As detailed throughout this order, and as is located throughout the docket in the case, the
16
Court has devoted inordinate amounts of time to deal with what should be a limited-in-scope
17
claim. And, once again, because of his conduct in bringing the motions to protect him from a
18
deposition, the Court is required to devote substantial time to reviewing the totality of the case
19
and assessing whether dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff’s conduct has diverted the Court from
20
the voluminous number of other cases pending which are competing for its limited resources.
21
Thus, the factor of the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs strongly in favor of dismissal.
22
The third factor—prejudice to the Defendants—also favors dismissal. “A defendant
23
suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to
24
interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig.,
25
460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoerren, 913 F.2d 1406,
26
1412 (9th Cir.1990)). Defendants have been unable to take Plaintiff’s deposition to inquire into
27
his claims. Defendants have also been forced to oppose Plaintiff’s repetitive and meritless
28
motions which unduly delay the proceedings in this case.
10
1
For the fourth factor, this Court has not lost sight of the strong interest in resolving cases
2
on the merits. But even this strong interest in deciding cases on the merits cannot override a
3
litigant’s conduct in refusing to abide by court orders. Although generally the public policy
4
favoring disposition of cases on the merits would weigh in favor of a lesser sanction than
5
dismissal, here, where Plaintiff’s misconduct is the cause of delays and prejudice to Defendants,
6
that factor does not weigh in Plaintiff’s favor. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig.,
7
460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir.2006). But as explained above, in this case, Plaintiff has now
8
repeatedly disregarded the Court’s orders. This factor weighs only slightly against dismissal.
9
No lesser sanction is warranted. A district court must consider the impact of a sanction
10
and whether a less severe sanction would adequately address a party’s failure to engage in the
11
discovery process. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131–32 (9th Cir. 1987). The
12
Court has considered lesser sanctions, but no lesser sanction is warranted. Evidentiary sanctions
13
would be ineffective, as Plaintiff would still be able to testify to information that he withheld
14
from Defendants at the deposition and the Court would have no practical way of excluding such
15
testimony. Monetary sanctions are also ineffective because of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
16
status. He would likely be unable to pay any monetary sanctions.
17
Additionally, the Court admonished Plaintiff about his discovery obligations and warned
18
him about the consequences of noncompliance, but Plaintiff has indicated no intent to comply
19
with any rulings or orders by the Court. Indeed, in opposing Defendants’ motion for sanctions,
20
Plaintiff did not agree to submit to a deposition.2 The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a]
21
district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case,
22
but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court
23
finds that there are no other, lesser sanctions that would be satisfactory or effective.
24
D.
25
Before ordering a terminating sanction, a court must warn the offending parties and try
26
27
28
Prior Warnings were Given in Clear and Explicit Terms
other sanctions first. For example, a district court’s failure to warn a party that dismissal is being
2
The Court would have, in any event, significantly discounted any reliance upon such a statement
from Plaintiff.
11
1
considered as a sanction weighs heavily against the sanction. U.S. for Use & Ben. of Wiltec
2
Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1988).
3
Plaintiff has been warned in adamant terms that his continued conduct risked dismissal.
4
Plaintiff was warned that “filing additional baseless motions, needlessly multiplying the
5
proceedings, wasting judicial resources, or otherwise submitting filings in bad faith or for the
6
purpose of harassment, will subject a party to sanctions.” (ECF No. 38, p. 7.) Plaintiff was again
7
warned that, “the filing of additional baseless motions, including motions for reconsideration
8
which merely repeat arguments already raised before the magistrate judge, will likely subject him
9
to the imposition of sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions.” (ECF No. 42, p. 8.)
10
And most strongly that “plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the taking of his deposition may also
11
result in the imposition of terminating sanctions, due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order
12
and failure to cooperate in discovery.” Id. Therefore, Plaintiff has been repeatedly and
13
adequately warned that his conduct risked dismissal of his case.
14
Here, the Court also considers Plaintiff’s bad faith in light of concerns of judicial
15
economy. Plaintiff’s conduct imposes an unnecessary and extreme burden on the Court’s limited
16
resources. By failing to abide by Court orders and heed the limitations imposed by law,
17
Plaintiff’s disregard of judicial rulings imposes a significant burden on limited resources to
18
review and decide meritless, repetitious and voluminous filings. Accordingly, this Court
19
recommends that this case be DISMISSED as a terminating sanction.
20
IV.
21
For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS as follows:
22
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order, (ECF No. 49), and Motion for Relief from
23
Judgment (ECF No. 48) be DENIED;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss/for terminating sanctions, (ECF No. 50), be GRANTED
24
25
and that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
26
3. All proceedings in this case are STAYED pending resolution of these Findings and
27
28
Conclusion and Recommendations
Recommendations.
///
12
1
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
3
twenty-one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties
4
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
5
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties advised that failure to file
6
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
7
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
8
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
December 10, 2020
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?