Lowry v. Metropolitan Transit Board MTBS et al

Filing 175

ORDER Adopting the 158 Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Denying the 144 Motion for Sanctions insofar as the motion seeks costs; Dismissing with prejudice case number 09cv00882 as to Defendant Joseph. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/5/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARYL LOWRY, 12 v. Case Nos. 09cv00882; 09cv00898 BTM (WVG) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 13 14 15 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT BOARD MTBS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Case Nos. 09cv00882, 09cv00898, and 09cv011411 arise out of three separate 19 encounters between Plaintiff Daryl Lowry and the various individual defendants 20 occurring on or about San Diego’s public transportation system. On September 11, 21 2012, Defendants Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”), Torrence Joseph (“Joseph”), 22 and Edwin Ambriz (“Ambriz”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions in each of these 23 three cases. (See ECF No. 144.) On October 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge William V. 24 Gallo entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) for all three cases. (See ECF 25 No. 158.) This Order is as to Case Nos. 09cv00882 and 09cv00898 only. A separate 26 order will be entered as to Case No. 09cv01141. 27 28 1 All references to documents on the Court’s docket shall be to documents in the 09cv00882 BTM (WVG) matter. 1 09cv00882; 09cv00898 BTM (WVG) 1 Under Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a case may be 2 dismissed in whole or in part for failure to obey a discovery order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Dismissal is appropriate only where “the party’s violations of the 4 court’s orders [are] due to wilfulness or bad faith.” Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 5 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011). The court must consider five factors in determining whether 6 dismissal is warranted, namely: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 7 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 8 other party; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and 9 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 788 (internal quotations omitted).• 10 The R&R is extremely thorough and painstaking in laying out what it 11 appropriately refers to as the “tortured history” of this litigation. (Id. at 3.) Since this 12 Court adopted Judge Gallo’s last R&R on April 26, 2012 (see ECF No. 120), there are 13 three central developments on which Defendants’ current motion for terminating 14 sanctions is based. (See R&R, ECF No. 158, at 15.) First, Plaintiff has now on a 15 second and third occasion refused to cooperate in the taking of his deposition. Second, 16 Plaintiff has failed to properly designate experts and submit expert reports. Finally, 17 Plaintiff has failed to appear before Judge Gallo on two separate occasions. 18 Specifically, he demanded a settlement conference, failed to appear when the 19 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) was scheduled, and then failed to appear 20 for the subsequent hearing on Judge Gallo’s order to show cause why he should not be 21 sanctioned for failure to appear for the MSC. All three constitute violations of Judge 22 Gallo’s July 27, 2012 Amended Scheduling Order (see ECF No. 131 at 1-3). 23 Mr. Lowry filed his objections to the R&R nunc pro tunc to December 13, 2012. 24 (See ECF No. 163.) In his response to the R&R, Mr. Lowry expresses remorse for his 25 belligerent behavior and promises to conduct himself in a courteous manner going 26 forward and attend all depositions and hearings “from now on.” (Id. at 2-3.) He states 27 that he has been “under an extreme amount of pressure to represent [himself]” (id. at 28 2) and has been looking for legal counsel. 2 09cv00882; 09cv00898 BTM (WVG) 1 He also explains, insofar as the Court understands it, that he failed to attend the 2 MSC because he did not understand that the MSC and pretrial conference (“PTC”) 3 were separate hearings, and when the PTC was rescheduled, he thought that also 4 applied to the MSC. (Id.) However, he does not explain his failure to attend the OSC 5 hearing. While Mr. Lowry states generally that his indigence has made it difficult for 6 him to “keep an active cell phone or a stable place of address” (id.), the fact remains 7 that it is his duty to monitor the docket as the plaintiff in these cases. 8 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Mr. Lowry’s 9 Objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) provides that: “A 10 judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 11 or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A 12 judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 13 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 14 The Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation. While the 15 Court is reluctant to impose the sanction of dismissal, Mr. Lowry has shown a 16 continued lack of respect for the judicial process that he himself initiated, and “[i]t is 17 appropriate to reject lesser sanctions where the court anticipates continued deceptive 18 misconduct.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 19 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). Aside from his bare promises to do better in the future, Mr. 20 Lowry has not given the Court any reason to believe that his behavior will in fact 21 change going forward. Despite some defendants having already been terminated as a 22 result of his misconduct, Mr. Lowry has continued to behave inappropriately despite 23 repeated warnings from Judge Gallo, including warnings that his behavior could result 24 in terminating sanctions, and Mr. Lowry has not convinced the Court that he will heed 25 Judge Gallo’s warnings this time around. Mr. Lowry has lied, refused to cooperate 26 with Defendants’ attempts to conduct discovery, and otherwise has made it next to 27 impossible for Defendants to garner information about Plaintiff’s case. In short, Mr. 28 Lowry’s “pattern of deception and discovery abuse” makes it impossible to proceed 3 09cv00882; 09cv00898 BTM (WVG) 1 “with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available.” Id. 2 The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the motion to dismiss under the 3 applicable law. See New Images, 482 F.3d at1096; Valley Eng’rs v. Electric Eng’g 4 Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). In New Images, the Ninth Circuit stated: 5 In deciding whether to impose case-dispositive sanctions, the most critical factor is not merely delay or docket management concerns, but truth. “What is most critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is whether the discovery violations ‘threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.’” 6 7 8 9 482 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057). As in New Images, the Court finds that “[t]he record in this case . . . amply 10 supports sanctions.” 11 conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, DISMISSES with prejudice case number 12 09cv00898 as to Defendant MTS and DISMISSES with prejudice case number 13 09cv00898 and 09cv00882 as to Defendant Joseph. The Court DENIES the motion 14 for sanctions in both cases insofar as the motions seek costs. 15 16 Id. Consequently, the Court ADOPTS the findings and As this leaves no remaining defendants in either case, the clerk is hereby directed to enter judgment accordingly. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: August 5, 2013 20 21 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 09cv00882; 09cv00898 BTM (WVG)

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?