Zhou et al v. David et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST XUE YUN CHEN (Dkt. No. 82). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/26/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

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 DENYING TERMINATING
SANCTIONS AGAINST XUE YUN
CHEN (Dkt. No. 82)

14
15
16

JIANG DAVID, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against

19

Plaintiff Xue Yun Chen (“Plaintiff”) and $2,195 in related attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt.

20

No. 82.) After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court DENIES

21

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against Xue Yun Chen. The Court will

22

determine alternative appropriate sanctions, including attorney’s fees and costs, after the

23

hearing on May 3, 2012. In the interim, Plaintiff is ordered to appear with counsel for a

24

deposition at a time and place convenient for Defendants.

25

BACKGROUND

26

Defendants contend that Xue Yun Chen should be dismissed as a Plaintiff because she

27

missed three depositions on January 25, February 1, and March 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 82 at 7.)

28

Defendants previously brought a sanctions motion regarding the January 25 and February 1

1

dates (Dkt. No. 71), on which the Court ruled (Dkt. No. 80.) At this time, the Court considers

2

whether the third missed deposition date on March 19 is egregious enough to justify

3

terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

4

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

5

Plaintiffs Zhi Yang Zhou, Xue Yen Chen, and Tony Chen to appear for their depositions with

6

counsel on March 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 73.) Plaintiff was in China caring for a sick relative at

7

the time of both the case management conference and the March 19 deposition date and only

8

returned on April 4, 2012 to attend the settlement conference on April 5, 2012. (Dkt. No. 95 at

9

4.) Defendants assert that since fact discovery closed April 1, 2012, they cannot now depose

Northern District of California

Plaintiff and then adequately prepare for trial. (Dkt. No. 97 at 2.) Plaintiff counters that

11
United States District Court

10

Defendants are not prejudiced by a delayed deposition from Plaintiff, who is now back from

12

China and available to be deposed with minimal notice. (Dkt. No. 95 at 3.)
DISCUSSION

13
14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits the court to impose sanctions—including

15

dismissal—on a party that fails to attend a properly noticed deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d).

16

Circumstances must “overcome the strong policy favoring disposition of cases on their

17

merits” to justify terminating sanctions. U.S. for Use of Ben. Of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu

18

Const. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, the “harsh sanction” of

19

dismissal, even for “a party’s repeated failure to appear for deposition,” is only proper when

20

the failure “is due to the willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Stars’ Desert Inn Hotel &

21

Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 525 (9th Cir. 1997).

22
23
24
25

The Court must also consider:
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to
manage its dockets, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, (4) the
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of
less drastic sanctions.

26

Hyde v. Drath & Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). The first three factors weigh in

27

favor of dismissing Plaintiff from this case. The missed depositions have hampered the

28

speedy resolution of this case, the Court’s docket had to accommodate the resulting motions

2

1

for court-ordered depositions and sanctions, and Defendants have experienced some prejudice

2

by not having Plaintiff’s deposition prior to the close of fact discovery and the further

3

settlement conference. The last two factors, however, tip strongly in favor of Plaintiff.

4

Based on the specific circumstances involving this Plaintiff, the Court is unpersuaded

5

that the ultimate sanction of dismissal is warranted here. Only the March 19 deposition was

6

court-ordered, and Plaintiff’s presence in China at both the time of the order and the

7

deposition supports an inference that she did not willfully miss the deposition in bad faith.

8

Dismissal, considered a “severe penalty,” is only appropriate in “extreme circumstances.”

9

U.S. for Use of Ben. Of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 603

Northern District of California

(9th Cir. 1988)(internal citation omitted). Further, Plaintiff did appear in person for the court-

11
United States District Court

10

ordered settlement conference. While the Court does not condone Plaintiff’s conduct, and

12

some form of sanction is appropriate, Defendants have not demonstrated the “extreme

13

circumstances” necessary to justify dismissal.

14

The dismissal cases upon which Defendants rely are distinguishable. In each the

15

plaintiff willfully violated court orders to appear for deposition. See Collins v. Illinois, 554

16

F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding case dismissal an appropriate sanction when “the

17

party’s actions [during discovery] displayed willfulness, bad faith, or fault”); Henry v. Gill

18

Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that dismissal was a proper

19

sanction where plaintiff refused for eight months to be deposed, previous sanctions failed, and

20

plaintiff otherwise thwarted discovery); and Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th

21

Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of complaint was proper after clients repeatedly failed to

22

attend court-ordered depositions).

23
24

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ request for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff is therefore DENIED.

25

Lesser sanctions, including attorney’s fees and costs, will be determined after the May 3, 2012

26

hearing. In the meantime, Plaintiff shall appear with her attorney for her deposition at the

27

date, time and place requested by Defendants. Plaintiff and her counsel are warned that

28

3

1

failure to appear for her deposition as requested by Defendants in good faith may result in

2

dismissal with prejudice of her claims.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: April 26, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10

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