Zhou et al v. David et al

Filing 80

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS (Dkt. Nos. 71, 72). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/20/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

ZHI YANG ZHOU, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

Case No.: C09-6059 JSC
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS AND TO
COMPEL DEPOSITIONS (Dkt. Nos.
71, 72)

14
15
16

JIANG DAVID, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Now pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions 1) for sanctions against

19

Plaintiff in the form of dismissal of the action or, in the alternative, $2,762.50 and 2) to

20

compel the depositions of Plaintiffs Zhi Yang Zhou, Tony Q. Chen, and Xue-Yun Chen

21

(“Deponents”) before April 1, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 71, 72.) After carefully considering the briefs

22

and argument of counsel, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see L.R. 7-

23

1(b), and orders Deponents’ counsel, Adam Wang, to pay Defendants $1,495 in sanctions.

24
25

DISCUSSION
All three deponents failed to appear for their January 25, 2012 depositions as noticed;

26

accordingly, the parties agreed to reschedule their depositions for February 1, 2012. The

27

depositions were scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. with Zhi-Yang Zhou, followed by Tony

28

Chen at 10:30 a.m. and Xue-Yun Chen at 1:00 p.m. Rather than appear for those depositions,

1

as agreed, Plaintiffs’ counsel Adam Wang chose to attend a bankruptcy court status

2

conference. He did not advise Defendants that he was unavailable for the previously-

3

scheduled depositions until 10:28 a.m—nearly an hour and a half after the depositions were

4

scheduled to commence. Even then he merely reported that he was “caught up with a CMC in

5

bankruptcy court” and would appear for the depositions as soon as he was done. (Dkt. No. 76-

6

3 at 2.) At 11:00 a.m., when Mr. Wang still had not appeared, Defendants’ counsel ended the

7

depositions and sent the court reporter and translator home. (Dkt. No. 71 at 5.)

8
9

In support of their argument that dismissal is an appropriate sanction, Defendants cite
Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding case dismissal an appropriate

Northern District of California

sanction when “the party's actions [during discovery] displayed willfulness, bad faith, or

11
United States District Court

10

fault”); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that

12

dismissal was a proper sanction where plaintiff refused for eight months to be deposed,

13

previous sanctions failed, and plaintiff otherwise thwarted discovery); FDIC v. Conner, 20

14

F.3d 1376, 1382 (5th Cir. 1994) (upholding monetary sanctions against an attorney where a

15

court’s discovery order was proper, and its violation led to the expenses addressed in the

16

sanction); and Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding a law firm

17

jointly and severally liable for sanctions issued after clients repeatedly failed to attend court-

18

ordered depositions). The conduct in these cases is distinguishable from this case because the

19

Deponents have not violated a court order and only cancelled one previously scheduled

20

deposition on January 25, 2012.

21

At the Case Management Conference on February 16, 2012, however, the Court

22

ordered Deponents to appear for their depositions with counsel on March 19, 2012. (Dkt. No.

23

73.) If Zhi Yang Zhou, Xue-Yun Chen, and their counsel do not appear as ordered,

24

Defendants may renew their motion for a further sanction. On March 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed

25

a motion for a protective order seeking permission to depose Tony Chen telephonically. (Dkt.

26

No. 77.) The Court denied this motion (Dkt. No. 79) but will permit Tony Chen to appear in

27

person for his deposition in conjunction with his appearance at the April 5, 2012 Settlement

28

Conference before Judge Zimmerman.

2

1

While dismissal is not yet appropriate, monetary sanctions against Mr. Wang are

2

warranted. The Court finds that Mr. Wang agreed to commence the depositions at a time

3

when he was scheduled to appear in bankruptcy court, and he did not notify Defendants’

4

counsel in advance of his conflict. As a result of Mr. Wang’s conduct, Defendants incurred

5

the costs of a court reporter and a translator, as well as attorney time wasted while waiting for

6

Mr. Wang to appear as he had agreed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) states that a

7

sanction, “including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party,” may

8

be imposed “on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the

9

deponent.” Plaintiffs argue against additional sanctions because the depositions were

Northern District of California

scheduled at the offices of Defendants’ counsel such that he “was not kept in any way from

11
United States District Court

10

attending to other matters.” (Dkt. No. 75 at 3.) Plaintiffs admit, however, that Defendants’

12

counsel was not advised to even expect a delay until nearly 10:30 a.m., and even then

13

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not give any indication of when he would arrive. As Defendants’

14

counsel was waiting for Mr. Wang from 9:00 a.m., when the depositions were scheduled to

15

begin, until 11:00 a.m., when Defendants cancelled the depositions on the record, Mr. Wang is

16

responsible for at least two hours of Defendants’ counsel’s time.

17

Moreover, Mr. Wang’s representation that he was late to the depositions because the

18

bankruptcy proceeding—Adversary Proceeding 11-4298 in the Northern District of

19

California— “went unexpectedly long” (Dkt. No. 76 at ¶ 3) is misleading at best. While the

20

bankruptcy proceeding may have been unexpectedly long, that is not why Mr. Wang did not

21

appear at Defendants’ counsel’s office at 9:00 a.m. as he had agreed to do. Rather, the docket

22

reflects that on January 18, 2012, the bankruptcy court held a status conference in the

23

Adversary Proceeding, and Mr. Wang did not appear. At Mr. Wang’s request, the bankruptcy

24

court thereafter continued the status conference to February 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.—precisely

25

the time Mr. Wang was supposed to be defending the depositions in this matter. In re

26

Cameron, A.P. No. 11-4298, Jan. 20, 2012 Order (Dkt. No. 10).

27
28

Accordingly, the Court orders Adam Wang to pay $910 to Defendants as a sanction for
his failure to appear on time to the February 1, 2012 scheduled depositions. This amount

3

1

represents two hours of Defendants’ counsel’s time at a billing rate of $195 per hour together

2

with the fees for the court reporter and interpreter that Mr. Wang previously agreed to pay.

3

He shall also pay for an additional three hours of Defendants’ counsel’s time incurred in

4

bringing these motions for sanctions and to compel for a total sanction of $1,495. This

5

sanction shall be paid to Defendants on or before April 6, 2012.

6

This Order disposes of Docket Numbers 71 and 72.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: March 20, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4