Quarrie v. Wells et al
Filing
446
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth deferring ruling on 428 Motion to Extend as to sanctions imposed by 417 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER and denying 428 Motion to Extend as to fees imposed by 371 ORDER granting Motion to Quash and granting in part Motion for Protective Order. (ceo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LINDSAY O’BRIEN QUARRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 17-350 MV/GBW
STEPHEN WELLS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PAYMENT PLAN
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a 3Week Extension of Time, to January 22nd, 2021 to Pay NMT Defendant’s Attorneys Fees
by Monthly Payment Plan (Propose $500/Month) Due to Unemployment. Doc. 428.
Having reviewed the Motion and the attendant briefing (docs. 433, 438), the Court will
DENY Plaintiff’s motion as to the fee award ordered by the undersigned.1
On December 18, 2020, pursuant to the Court’s order (doc. 371) granting
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (doc. 344), Plaintiff
was ordered to pay a fee award to Defendant New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology (“NMT”) in the amount of $2,169.71 no later than January 4, 2021.2 Doc.
Plaintiff’s motion also requests a payment plan with respect to the sanctions ordered by Judge Vázquez
pursuant to an order filed December 16, 2020 (doc. 417). See doc. 428 at 1. Because those sanctions are in
the purview of Judge Vázquez, the undersigned will defer to her for a final ruling on this motion.
2 Specifically, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the expense award within fourteen days of the Court’s order.
Doc. 418 at 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C), the payment was due on the
Monday following New Year’s Day.
1
418. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking to pay the fee
award in monthly installments of $500.00. Doc. 428. On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff
sent Defendant NMT a partial payment of $169.71 to show his intention “in good faith”
to pay the full amount. Doc. 432 at 1. On January 26 and February 9, 2021, Plaintiff sent
additional partial payments of $500.00 each. Doc. 438 at 3; doc. 441. Plaintiff has stated
an intention to pay the remaining $1,000.00 in two additional installments to be sent on
March 22 and April 22. Doc. 441 at 1. However, to date, Plaintiff has not confirmed that
any further payments have been sent.
Inability to pay sanctions is “treated like an affirmative defense, with the burden
upon the parties being sanctioned to come forward with evidence of their financial
status.” Dodd Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 935 F.2d 1152, 1160 (10th Cir. 1991)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). General assertions of inability to pay
do not suffice to merit relief from sanctions. White v. Gen. Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 675,
685 (10th Cir. 1990) (contention that plaintiffs “would be forced into bankruptcy” by
sanctions is insufficient). Moreover, even proof that a party is “totally impecunious”
will not relieve him from the imposition of “modest” monetary sanctions. Id.
Plaintiff contends that the applicable standard for his request is Rule 6(b)(1)
because he is not seeking to be relieved of the requirement to pay entirely3 but only to
Contradictorily, Plaintiff also contends that Rule 60(b)(1) supports relieving him from payment because
he was “surprised” by the sanctions. Doc. 438 at 2. The Court’s order granting sanctions under Rule 37
was filed August 24, 2020. Doc. 371. The Court trusts that the shock of surprise has dulled these seven
3
2
extend the time required to pay. Doc. 438 at 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)
requires a showing of good cause to extend the time for any act that must be done
within a specified time. “It requires the moving party to show the deadline ‘cannot be
met despite the movant’s diligent efforts.’” Utah Republican Party v. Herbert, 678 F.
App’x 697, 701 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (quoting Gorsuch, Ltd. V. Wells Fargo Nat’l
Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014)). Thus, even under Rule 6, Plaintiff must
show that he is unable to pay.
In support of his motion, Plaintiff states that he has been unemployed since
September 28, 2020 and produces in evidence a “Monetary Determination” letter from
the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, confirming Plaintiff’s eligibility
for unemployment benefits effective November 15, 2020. Doc. 429-1 at 1. Plaintiff also
states that he has not yet received any unemployment benefits as they are “still being
processed due to the heavy backlog owing to [the] COVID-19 pandemic.” Doc. 428 at 2;
see also doc. 438 at 3 (asserting that his receipt of unemployment benefits is still pending
“as the State of New Mexico is still waiting on the federal government’s pandemic
relief”). The only evidence Plaintiff produces to support this assertion is a screenshot
ostensibly from the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions website showing
months later, especially given that this is not the first occasion on which Plaintiff has been sanctioned for
his conduct in discovery. See docs. 142, 342. Indeed, the present case is not the first in which Plaintiff has
been sanctioned in this district. See Quarrie v. N.M. Inst. of Mining & Tech., 621 F. App’x 928, 930 (10th Cir.
2015). No one should be less surprised by the imposition of sanctions than Plaintiff.
3
that Plaintiff’s benefits payments are on “Hold.” Doc. 438-2. This evidence does not
establish that any delay in Plaintiff’s receipt of unemployment benefits is due to
circumstances beyond his control.
Plaintiff may be presently unemployed. However, the bare fact of Plaintiff’s
unemployment does not establish that he is totally lacking in financial resources with
which to satisfy his obligations. The burden is on Plaintiff to prove an inability to pay in
the time required. He has failed to meet this burden. In consideration of Plaintiff’s
unemployment, the Court will decline to impose additional sanctions for Plaintiff’s
failure to pay the full amount to date. Having received a grace period of over three
months, Plaintiff must now pay the remaining balance owed.4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED IN PART as to
the fee award assessed by this Court and DEFERRED as to any sanctions assessed by
the presiding judge. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant NMT the outstanding balance of
$1,000.00 within seven (7) days of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order shall
constitute an independent basis for dismissal. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3
(10th Cir. 2003).
_____________________________________
GREGORY B. WORMUTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
The Court notes that, despite the denial of his motion, Plaintiff has received the benefit of nearly all his
requested delay.
4
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?