Reno v. Western Cab Company et al

Filing 386

ORDER. IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 377 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 371 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plain tiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 384 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must depose Western Cabs 30(b)(6) representative by March 31, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall rearrange their schedules to en sure the deposition is completed by March 31, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer by March 15, 2024, to determine a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the deposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wester n Cabs failure to attend the deposition on the agreed-upon date, which must occur by March 31, 2024, may result in the imposition of all sanctions Plaintiffs previously sought. See ECF No. 371 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 3/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MICHAEL RENO, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7

Case No. 2:18-cv-00840-APG-BNW
ORDER

v.
WESTERN CAB COMPANY, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s order imposing sanctions on

10
11

Defendant Western Cab (ECF No. 380) for failing to appear at its 30(b)(6) deposition. ECF

12

No. 384. The Court will construe the objection as a motion for reconsideration. The order at ECF

13

No. 380 precluded Western Cab from contesting the accuracy of records, contesting the

14

application of an average fuel cost in records that fail to include a fuel-cost amount, disputing

15

that each plaintiff is owed fuel costs that they paid from their tips, and contesting liability for

16

each plaintiff for whom it has not produced records. ECF No. 380 at 6–7. Said order, however,

17

neglected to include that Western Cab would be given one final opportunity to be deposed on the

18

remaining two deposition topics, topics seven and nine. Therefore, the Court vacates its prior

19

order at ECF No. 380 and enters this new order.

20

I.

21

BACKGROUND
As relevant to this Order, Plaintiffs seek sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

37(b)(2) for violating the Court’s discovery orders. Id.1 They ask the Court to preclude Western

23

Cab from contesting the accuracy of records, contesting the application of an average fuel cost in

24

records that fail to include a fuel-cost amount, disputing that each plaintiff is owed fuel costs that

25

they paid from their tips, contesting liability for each plaintiff for whom it has not produced

26

records, presenting and proving any affirmative defenses, and denying that it engaged in a

27

1

28

Plaintiffs also seek sanctions under other rules. Given that the Court will impose sanctions
under Rule 37(b)(2), it will not discuss the remaining grounds upon which Plaintiffs move for
sanctions.

1

“willful” violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Id. at 12–13. Plaintiffs also

2

request a sanction for costs and fees arising from Western Cab’s failure to appear. Id. at 13.
Though the motion was initially unopposed, ECF No. 373, Defendants ultimately filed an

3
4

opposition, albeit after the deadline. ECF No. 375. Plaintiffs then moved to strike the untimely

5

filed opposition and also filed a reply. ECF Nos. 377, 378. As explained below, the Court will

6

exercise its discretion and consider Defendants’ opposition, but only to the extent that it applies

7

to Western Cab.

8

After considering the five-factor analysis for awarding sanctions, the Court will issue

9

preclusion sanctions closely related to topics that would have been covered in Western Cab’s

10

deposition. The Court will also award Plaintiffs costs and fees related to the taking of Western

11

Cab’s deposition and bringing the underlying motion because Western Cab failed to establish

12

that its failure was substantially justified. But the Court will not preclude Western Cab from

13

denying that it engaged in a willful violation of the FLSA or from presenting any affirmative

14

defenses, as these sanctions are tantamount to exacting a default judgment against Western Cab.

15

Instead, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to depose Western Cab on these two topics.

16

II.

ANALYSIS

17

A. Defendants’ Untimely Opposition

18

First, the Court must decide whether to consider Defendant Western Cab’s opposition at

19

ECF No. 375. By way of background, Plaintiffs filed two motions for sanctions. The first motion

20

sought sanctions for Defendant Awad’s failure to attend his deposition. ECF No. 370. This Court

21

already entered an order to that motion. See ECF No. 374. The second motion, which is currently

22

before the Court, seeks sanctions for Defendant Western Cab’s 30(b)(6) witness’s failure to

23

attend the deposition. The opposition to this motion attempts to justify why neither Defendants

24

Awad nor Western Cab attended the depositions. To the extent that the opposition at ECF

25

No. 375 attempts to respond to both motions for sanctions, the Court will not consider the

26

opposition insofar as it relates to Defendant Awad, as the Court has already resolved Plaintiffs’

27

request for sanctions regarding this defendant. ECF No. 374.

28

2

1

Next, the opposition at ECF No. 375 was filed two days late. The opposition did not

2

address the fact that it was late or establish excusable neglect (as it must) for its consideration.

3

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see generally ECF No. 375. This is not the first time that Defendants

4

have untimely filed documents. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 140, 362 at 1, 368 at 1. Nonetheless, the

5

Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition and resolve the motion on the merits. As

6

such, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike.

7

B. Western Cab’s Failure to Attend its Deposition

8

In their motion, Plaintiffs seek sanctions under several rules, including Federal Rule of

9

Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) for Western Cab’s failure to attend its deposition, which violates the

10

Court’s discovery orders. ECF No. 371 at 12–13. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) allows a court to sanction

11

a party who violates a discovery order by “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or

12

opposing designated claims or defenses.” In addition, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) states that the court must

13

order the disobedient party “to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by

14

the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified.”

15

The Court considers the five-factor test that is employed when determining whether to

16

issue sanctions: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s

17

need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, (4) the public

18

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less-drastic

19

sanctions. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). Sanctions

20

under Rule 37(b)(2) may be appropriate when three factors strongly favor the imposition of such

21

sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the public’s interest in

22

the expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of

23

prejudice to the party seeking sanctions weigh in favor of imposing Plaintiffs’ requested

24

sanctions. See id.

25

The Court begins by pointing out that it ordered the parties nearly ten months ago to meet

26

and confer to determine a date for the deposition. ECF No. 340. Since then, the Court ordered the

27

parties twice more to meet and confer to, again, determine a mutually agreeable time for the

28

3

1

deposition. ECF Nos. 362, 368. The lack of cooperation between the parties and this Court’s

2

frustration with the fact that the deposition had not taken place led to an order prescribing a

3

meticulous method for the parties to agree on a deposition date. ECF No. 368 at 2. In such order,

4

the Court warned that:

5
6
7
8

the parties should take note that this Court is astounded by their well-established
pattern of unprofessionalism toward each other and, should another motion be
filed based on their inability to communicate, this Court is prepared to issue an
Order to Show Cause why they should not be sanctioned accordingly.
Id. (emphasis added).

9

In addition, a prior order admonished the parties to make the deposition a scheduling

10

priority and warned that sanctions would follow if they did not comply. ECF No. 362 at 2–3.

11

Rule 37 tells all lawyers and their clients that preclusion sanctions are possible if they

12

violate discovery orders and that “direct warnings or other circumstances may make it clear that

13

[sanctions are] a real risk of continued violation in the particular case.” Valley Engineers Inc. v.

14

Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). The Court

15

warned the parties many times that sanctions may issue if they did not make the taking of the

16

deposition a priority or if they had to seek further court intervention based on the parties’

17

inability to communicate. ECF No. 362 at 2–3; ECF No. 368 at 2. Based on the Court’s orders

18

and the parties’ prior behavior as a whole—coupled with the fact that discovery closed on

19

February 12, 2024—Western Cab knew that it was in jeopardy of facing sanctions for failing to

20

appear at its deposition and then failing to communicate with Plaintiffs for over two months.

21

Valley Engineers Inc., 158 F.3d at 1057 (finding that Defendant knew it could be subject to

22

dismissal sanctions after the Court threatened sanctions for anything that would “frustrate the

23

speedy disposition of the case”); Tacori Enterprises v. Beverlly Jewellery Co., 253 F.R.D. 577,

24

580 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (precluding Defendant from presenting evidence regarding deposition

25

topics after violating court’s order to complete 30(b)(6) deposition).

26
27
28

In its opposition, Western Cab states that no sanctions should issue because defense
counsel and his daughter became ill mid-December, his daughter was hospitalized in January,
4

1

and his computer was stolen from his car in late January. Although the Court is sympathetic to

2

such issues, defense counsel’s inaction for such an extended period is problematic. As an

3

attorney, defense counsel is held to a high standard of professionalism. See, e.g., MODEL RULES

4

OF PROF’L CONDUCT 1.1,

5

daughter’s hospitalization and the break-in of his car—did not occur until January 17, 2024, and

6

January 24, 2024, which was after Western Cab’s scheduled deposition on January 15, 2024.

7

ECF Nos. 375 at 5, 376 at 4. It is likely counsel’s daughter was sick on January 15, 2025, but

8

Defense counsel had options at his disposal to communicate to Plaintiffs and/or the Court that

9

Western Cab was unavailable for its deposition rather than choosing not to respond. The failure

10

to respond is further magnified when considering defense counsel did not respond to Plaintiffs

11

for nearly two months. In addition, this is not the first time that defense counsel has pointed to

12

issues in his personal life as justification for not complying with his professional duties. Such

13

behavior is simply not acceptable.

14

1.2 (Competence, Diligence). And the most significant events—his

In terms of the five-factor test for issuing sanctions, the Court finds that three factors

15

weigh heavily in favor of awarding sanctions: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious

16

resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, and (3) the risk of prejudice to

17

the party seeking sanctions. See Rio Props, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1022; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643.

18

The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution on litigation. First, this case has been

19

going on since 2018. ECF No. 362 at 2. Despite this Court’s orders over several months, Western

20

Cab has not been deposed. The failure to conduct the deposition continues to delay this case.

21

The Court’s need to manage its docket. Second, this deposition has been subject to three

22

motions to compel and various requests for sanctions. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 196, 362, 363, 371. To

23

be sure, the Court has had to craft orders bordering on the ridiculous for the parties to figure out

24

a time and date for this deposition to take place. See, e.g., ECF No. 368. The Court cannot

25

relentlessly address this issue.

26
27
28

The risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions. Finally, at this juncture, the Court
does not believe that Western Cab has any intention of being deposed. Plus, the deadline for
5

1

taking the depositions—February 12, 2024—has already passed and Defendants have not asked

2

for an extension. See ECF No. 368 at 1. In turn, the inability to depose Western Cab prejudices

3

Plaintiffs given that its testimony regarding the hours Plaintiffs worked, Plaintiffs’ wages after

4

deducting gas payments, the cost of gas Plaintiffs paid from their tips, the accuracy of the

5

records, and the existence of a gas policy all bear on crucial elements of Plaintiffs’ claims. ECF

6

No. 371 at 6–8. In failing to appear for its deposition, Western Cab has prejudiced Plaintiffs by

7

preventing them from preparing for their case. In re Heritage Bond Litig., 223 F.R.D. 527, 530

8

(C.D. Cal. 2004).

9

The facts above weigh in favor of imposing these sanctions. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at

10

643. Although less-drastic sanctions are available, the Court has awarded fees and costs in the

11

past for violating other discovery orders. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 304, 317, 354. And the Court may,

12

in deciding a proper sanction, “properly consider all of a party’s discovery misconduct. . .

13

including conduct which has been the subject of earlier sanctions.” Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121

14

F.3d 503, 508 (9th Cir.1997). The Court fears that should it award the less-drastic sanction of

15

fees, it may only be kicking the can down the road.

16

Given the Court’s prior orders, the parties’ history, and Western Cab’s present conduct,

17

these are appropriate sanctions that are reasonably related to the subject of discovery that was

18

frustrated by the sanctionable conduct. See Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir.

19

2001). Because Western Cab failed to establish that its failure was substantially justified, the

20

Court will also award Plaintiffs costs related to the taking of Western Cab’s deposition and

21

bringing the underlying motion.

22

The Court will not, however, preclude Western Cab from denying that it engaged in a

23

willful violation of the FLSA or from asserting any affirmative defenses. As stated above, such

24

sanctions are too harsh and would equate to the imposition of a default judgement. Instead, the

25

Court will allow Plaintiffs to depose Western Cab on these two topics.

26
27
28

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 377) is

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 371) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 384)
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), Western Cab is
precluded from:

10

1.

11

2. Contesting the application of an average fuel-cost amount for any plaintiff’s shift

12

in which the records fail to include a fuel-cost amount paid by said plaintiff;

13

3. Disputing that each plaintiff is owed an amount equal to the fuel costs paid out of
their tips; and

14
15

Contesting the accuracy of records produced in this case regarding the plaintiffs;

4.

Contesting liability to each plaintiff for whom it has not produced records, for an

16

amount equal to the average amount owed under the FLSA to plaintiffs for whom

17

records were produced.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions precluding Western

19

Cab from denying that it engaged in a willful violation of the FLSA and presenting any

20

affirmative defenses is DENIED.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), Western Cab is

22

ordered to pay the costs of arranging the court reporter and legal videographer services, the fees

23

properly incurred in preparing and appearing for Western Cab’s deposition, and the fees

24

properly incurred in bringing this motion (ECF No. 371).

25
26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must depose Western Cab’s 30(b)(6)
representative by March 31, 2024.

27
28

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall rearrange their schedules to ensure
the deposition is completed by March 31, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer by March 15, 2024,
to determine a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the deposition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party failing to make itself available to meet and
confer may be sanctioned.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deposition shall last no more than four hours and

8

shall be restricted to topics seven and nine, which relate to Western Cab’s affirmative defenses

9

and whether it engaged in a willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Western Cab’s failure to attend the deposition on the

11

agreed-upon date, which must occur by March 31, 2024, may result in the imposition of all

12

sanctions Plaintiffs previously sought. See ECF No. 371.

13
14
15
16

DATED this 8th day of March 2024.

17
18
19

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8