Walters v. S&F Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 87

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 45 Motion for Sanctions to Strike Defendants Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse. That the Recommendation on Plaintiff� 39;s Motion for Sanctions to Strike Defendants [Sic] Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse (Docket No. 45) 50 is approved and adopted as an order of this court.That the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions to Strike Defendants [Sic] Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse 64 are overruled. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/28/2015.(mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02006-REB-MJW
BRIANNA WALTERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
S & F HOLDINGS LLC, dba “WILLOW RIDGE MANOR,” and
GREGORY SARGOWICKI,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to Strike
Defendants Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse [#45]1
filed July 10, 2015; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Sanctions to Strike Defendants [Sic] Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury
and Discovery Abuse (Docket No. 45) [#50] filed July 29, 2015. The plaintiff filed
objections [#48] to the recommendation. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt
the recommendation, and deny the motion for sanctions.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the
1

“[#45]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw, as well as the arguments raised
and authorities cited by the parties both in their original briefs and in the objections
This case concerns a rattlesnake bite suffered by the plaintiff, Brianna Walters,
while she was at Willow Ridge Manor, a property owned by the defendants. Ms.
Walters seeks sanctions against the defendants because defendant Gregory Sargowicki
has testified that, prior to the incident at issue in this case, he had never seen a
rattlesnake at Willow Ridge Manor. According to Ms. Walters, Mr. Sargowicki also has
testified that he never warned other guests at Willow Ridge Manor about rattlesnakes.
Ms. Walters says she has obtained photos and statements from other Willow
Ridge Manor guests which contradict these statements by Mr. Sargowicki. Based on
these conflicting statements, Ms. Walters asks the court to find that Mr. Sargowicki has
committed perjury repeatedly.
She also contends the defendants provided in discovery 5,000 pages of
documents in which certain relevant information was found by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
claims the volume of this document discovery and the timing of its delivery constitute
discovery abuse. Ms. Walters asks that the pleadings of the defendants be stricken and
default judgment entered against them.
The magistrate judge recommends that the motion for sanctions be denied. First,
the fact that some statements by Mr. Sargowicki are in conflict with other evidence does
not, by itself, merit sanctions. To conclude that Mr. Sargowicki committed perjury, I
would have to determine that the other witnesses cited by Ms. Walters are inherently
credible and Mr. Sargowicki is not. At this point, such a credibility determination by the
court is improper – and premature.
2

Second, there is no evidence that the defendants provided more documents than
Ms. Walters requested in her discovery requests or that the defendants somehow
buried evidence in their document production. Finally, Ms. Walters has not shown that
the defendants somehow prevented her from using effectively the one expert witness
she was permitted to designate in this case.
In her objections [#64], Ms. Walters cites a new witness statement which
contradicts some statements of Mr. Sargowicki. This witness statement does not
change the calculus concerning sanctions. Rather, the analysis of the magistrate judge
remains appropriate and correct when the new witness statement is considered in the
context of the motion of Ms. Walters. Otherwise, Ms. Walters does not present in her
objections [#64] any arguments which undermine the analysis of the magistrate judge.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommendation
on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to Strike Defendants [Sic] Pleadings and
Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse [#64] filed August 7, 2015, are
overruled;
2. That the Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to Strike
Defendants [Sic] Pleadings and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse
(Docket No. 45) [#50] filed July 29, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this
court; and

3

3. That the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to Strike Defendants Pleadings
and Appearances for Perjury and Discovery Abuse [#45] filed July 10, 2015, is
denied.
Dated August 28, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4