DiTucci et al v. Ashby et al

Filing 246

AMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION ADOPTING 227 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 208 Motion for Order to Show Cause: William Bowser is held in contempt and sanctioned per the Magistrate's recommendations until he is in compliance with the 196 Order to Compel. Sanction fines will begin to accrue on 3/20/21, if Mr. Bowser does not comply. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 3/18/21 (alt)

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4089 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ROSA DITUCCI, et al.,
AMENDED1 ORDER AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,

vs.
Case No. 2:19-cv-277-TC-JCB
CHRISTOPHER ASHBY, et al.,
Defendants.

On February 17, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared Bennett issued a Report and
Recommendation2 (R&R) that pro se defendant William Bowser be held in contempt and
sanctioned in a manner that will compel his compliance with the Magistrate Judge’s September
11, 2020 discovery order. In that discovery order, the Magistrate Judge found Mr. Bowser had
not fulfilled his discovery obligations, and, in fact, had repeatedly provided incomplete or
nonresponsive answers to Plaintiffs’ valid discovery requests. He ordered Mr. Bowser to
respond, but Mr. Bowser did not comply with the order to compel appropriate and complete
responses, so Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Bowser Should
Not Be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Discovery Order.3 After a show-cause

1

This order is amended to change the manner of service and the date fines begin to accrue.
ECF No. 227.
3
ECF No. 208.
2

1

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4090 Page 2 of 13

hearing, during which Mr. Bowser offered his explanation, the Magistrate Judge determined that
Mr. Bowser’s response was inadequate and, accordingly, issued the R&R.
Plaintiffs object to the R&R, contending it contained incorrect findings of fact and did
not recommend sufficient sanctions. For the reasons set forth below, the court overrules
Plaintiffs’ objection and adopts the R&R.
THE ORDER TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Inspection of
Defendant’s iPad and iCloud and Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 191 (“Motion to Compel”)).
Mr. Bowser did not file an opposition. (He later claimed he did not receive the motion, but the
court found otherwise.)
The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion to Compel in part and denied it in part. (See
Sept. 11, 2020 Order, ECF No. 196 (“Order to Compel”).) He said Plaintiffs’ request to inspect
the electronic devices was “an undeveloped destruction of evidence claim,” and denied it without
prejudice. (Id. at 4.) But he did find, after “a review of the [Plaintiffs’ May 1, 2020] Discovery
Requests and Mr. Bowser’s responses … that the information sought is nonprivileged, relevant,
and proportional.” (Id. at 3.) According to the Magistrate Judge, “Mr. Bowser’s answers to
these proper Discovery Requests [were] either incomplete or nonresponsive” (id.), so he granted
that portion of the Motion to Compel:
Mr. Bowser shall provide full and complete written responses to the Discovery
Requests no later than September 24, 2020. Should Mr. Bowser fail to comply
with this Order, the court will proceed to impose sanctions pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2) which may include, inter alia, recommending that Judge
Campbell enter default judgment against Mr. Bowser.
(Id.) He also ordered Mr. Bowser “to show cause why he should not be required to pay
Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses incurred in bringing [the Motion to Compel].” (Id. at 4.) Mr.
Bowser received the Order to Compel via certified mail on September 14, 2020.
2

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4091 Page 3 of 13

In his answer to the Order to Compel, Mr. Bowser said “responses to discovery requests
have been submitted.” (See Sept. 23, 2020 Response to Order at p. 1 ¶ 3, ECF No. 201.) He
explained why he believed he was in compliance: he “turned over 1.3GB of discovery requested
documents,” and “[j]ust because [Plaintiffs’] Counsel does not like or agree with an answer does
not make the answer inherently un-meaningful.” (Id. at p. 3.)
Mr. Bowser then asserted that he “should not be sanctioned nor otherwise penalized
because plaintiffs did not properly notice with regard to the original motion to compel.” (Id. at
2; see also id.at p. 1 ¶ 1 and p. 2 (denying receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel).) Later, in the
R&R, the Magistrate Judge found Mr. Bowser’s denial that he received Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel “unsupported by the record”:
[T]he record demonstrates that Mr. Bowser had knowledge of the unresolved
discovery issues, that opposing counsel would file a motion to compel, two
unrequited calls from the court after the motion was filed, and service of the
motion to Mr. Bowser’s email address on file with the court. Accordingly, to the
extent that Mr. Bowser claims he was unaware of [the] motion to compel or failed
to receive service, his claims are unsupported by the record.
(Feb. 17, 2021 Report & Recommendation ¶ 20, ECF No. 227.)
After a series of subsequent communications between Plaintiffs and Mr. Bowser, Mr.
Bowser provided supplemental responses. Apart from those responses, Mr. Bowser told
Plaintiffs to “work with the bankruptcy trustee [Mr. Bower’s company, Co-Defendant Noah
Corporation, was in bankruptcy] to obtain the documents responsive to the requests.” (Id. ¶ 22.)
But the supplemental responses did not satisfy the Plaintiffs (and the Magistrate Judge
later found them to be incomplete and not fully in compliance with the Order to Compel), so they
filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Bowser Should not be Held in
Contempt for Failure to Comply with Discovery Order (ECF No. 208 (“Motion for OSC”)).
They requested that the court order Mr. Bowser to appear in person to show why he should not
3

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4092 Page 4 of 13

be held in contempt, sanctioned (including entry of default judgment), and ordered to pay fees
and costs for bringing the Motion to Compel and Motion for OSC.
THE “SHOW CAUSE” HEARING
On January 8, 2021, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the Motion for OSC. Mr.
Bowser, appearing pro se,4 attempted to explain why the Plaintiffs’ requested relief should not be
granted.
At the show-cause hearing, Plaintiffs told the court Mr. Bowser had still not responded to
eight interrogatories and seventeen requests for documents. Mr. Bowser asserted that “most of
the items and information Plaintiffs requested do not exist, are not in his possession, and can be
obtained through the trustee instead of through him.” (R&R ¶ 26.) But then, when questioned
by the court, “Mr. Bowser indicated that responsive documents and information did in fact exist
but that he had simply not understood the questions asked until that moment.” (Id. ¶ 27.) He
also “admitted he had not made reasonable efforts to obtain responsive information because he
did not think he had to based on advice from [former] counsel regarding his bankruptcy estate.”
(Id.)
And Mr. Bowser once again “expressed some concern about the relevance and
proportionality of some of the requests.” (Id.) But the Magistrate Judge told Mr. Bowser he had
waived his right to voice that objection because Mr. Bowser had not responded to the discovery
requests or the motion to compel. (Id. ¶ 28.)
Ruling from the bench, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the facts supported a finding
of contempt and that Mr. Bowser should be sanctioned for failing to properly respond to the

4

Initially, Mr. Bowser was represented by counsel. But on July 14, 2020, his counsel withdrew,
and on August 14, 2020, Mr. Bowser entered his appearance as a pro se defendant.
4

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4093 Page 5 of 13

Discovery Requests. As for the type of sanctions, the Magistrate Judge took that issue under
advisement.
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge formally articulated his reasons for recommending that
Mr. Bowser be held in contempt. He also proposed a set of sanctions that did not rise to the level
of severity Plaintiffs requested in their Motion for OSC.
Citing the standard for civil contempt, the Magistrate Judge found the record established
by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bowser was in contempt of court. “Mr. Bowser was
properly served with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on August 26, 2020, and he failed to respond
to those discovery requests, failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, and failed to
comply with the court’s September 11, 2020 order. Mr. Bowser then came to the show cause
hearing having not fully complied with the court order because he failed to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (R&R at p. 8.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge pointed out
that Mr. Bowser “admitted that he had access to the bankruptcy trustee’s documents,” which
would have been responsive to the Plaintiffs’ requests. (Id.) Furthermore, even though Plaintiffs
“already have access to Mr. Bowser’s voluminous documents in the bankruptcy trustee’s
possession, Mr. Bowser has the obligation to specify which documents in the mass before the
bankruptcy trustee are responsive to each request.” (Id. at pp. 8–9 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(a)(1), 34(b)(2)(B).) But Mr. Bowser had not specified.
The Magistrate Judge found that, “[d]espite the existence of a valid court order and Mr.
Bowser’s knowledge of the same,” Mr. Bowser’s responses to specified interrogatories and
document production requests (including requests seeking documents in possession of the
bankruptcy trustee) were still incomplete at the time of the show-cause hearing and that Mr.

5

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4094 Page 6 of 13

Bowser had not articulated any reason why he should be excused from that discovery obligation.
(Id. at p. 9.) This, recommends the Magistrate Judge, warrants a finding of contempt and
sanctions.
Plaintiffs asked the court to strike Mr. Bowser’s complaint and enter default judgment
against him. The Magistrate Judge declined to do so.
He noted that, “[i]n general, before imposing severe sanctions such as striking a party’s
answer or dismissing a case, courts should consider the Ehrenhaus factors.” (Id. at p. 10.)
While not establishing a “rigid test,” the following factors should be considered
and applied: (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the other party; (2) the amount
of interference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the litigant;
(4) whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action
would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions. These factors are neither exhaustive nor entitled to equal weight.
(Id. (citing Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992)).) The Ehrenhaus court
emphasized that “[o]nly when the aggravating factors outweigh the judicial system’s strong
predisposition to resolve cases on their merits is dismissal an appropriate sanction.” Ehrenhaus,
965 F.2d at 921 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge also cited
Lee v. Max International, LLC, in which the Tenth Circuit held that “a dismissal or default
sanctions order should be predicated on willfulness, bad faith, or [some] fault rather than just a
simple inability to comply.” 638 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
After considering the Ehrenhaus factors, the Magistrate Judge held that default judgment
against Mr. Bowser was not warranted.
Although the record reflects that Mr. Bowser has been pervasively nonresponsive
to Plaintiffs’ discovery request and their attempts to communicate, only one
discovery order has been entered to date, and this is the court’s first attempt to
enforce the order. Further, the record does not support a finding of bad faith or
willfulness sufficient to strike his defenses and enter default judgment. For
example, Mr. Bowser stated that he relied on advice of counsel to not be specific
6

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4095 Page 7 of 13

in his discovery responses under the theory that he was no longer the owner of the
company and, therefore, had no obligation to provide documents. Although this
is clearly incorrect legal advice, it appears that Mr. Bowser was not attempting to
be an obstructionist.
(R&R at p. 11 (emphasis added).)
Although he did find that Plaintiffs were prejudiced, he concluded that the prejudice they
suffered was not significant enough to give them “a free pass to victory[.]” (Id. at p. 12.)
[T]he fact is that Plaintiffs already have all responsive documents that were in Mr.
Bowser’s possession through the bankruptcy trustee. Thus, Mr. Bowser’s failure
to comply does not deprive Plaintiffs of evidence to prove their case but deprives
them of specifically knowing which documents are responsive to Plaintiffs’
discovery requests. Although this violation of the rules warrants sanctions, the
court questions how prejudicial Mr. Bowser’s lack of specificity has been to
Plaintiffs. After all, during oral argument, Plaintiffs stated that they were
prepared to file their motion for summary judgment even without Mr. Bowser’s
responses.
(Id. at p. 11 (emphasis added).) Indeed, eleven days after the hearing, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment against Mr. Bowser on their claim of unjust enrichment. (See
Jan. 19, 2021 Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 220).) The Magistrate Judge did, however,
find that “Mr. Bowser’s lack of specificity … has unnecessarily caused the Plaintiffs extra time
and, therefore, expense to glean information that a proper discovery response could have quickly
provided.” (R&R at pp. 11–12.)
Determining that contempt sanctions were necessary to coerce Mr. Bowser’s compliance
with the Order to Compel, the Magistrate Judge recommended “imposing a daily fine of one
hundred dollars ($100.00) against Mr. Bowser for each day he fails to comply with court’s
September 11, 2020 order until such time that Mr. Bowser purges the contempt” by sufficiently
responding to the Discovery Requests. (Id. at p. 12.) He also directed Plaintiffs to file another
motion for order to show cause if after twenty-one days from the date of this order Mr. Bowser
still has not complied. If Plaintiffs file such a motion, the Magistrate Judge recommended that a
7

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4096 Page 8 of 13

hearing be held and, “[i]f, after a hearing, the court determines that Mr. Bowser has not complied
…, the court should consider imposing sanctions of incarceration.” (Id. at p. 14.)
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge issued the R&R under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and based his
recommendation on the sanctioning authority contained in Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. That rule allows a court to sanction a party for failure “to obey an order to provide or
permit discovery” by:
(i)

directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts
be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
claims;

(ii)

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated
claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(iii)

striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv)

staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v)

dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi)

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii)

treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order
to submit to a physical or mental examination.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
The Magistrate Judge may not issue an order of contempt under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii).
Instead, he must certify the facts to the district court judge who then determines whether the
party should be held in contempt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(B)(6)(iii). Following that procedure, the
Magistrate Judge issued findings of fact after hearing from the parties. He then recommended
that Mr. Bowser’s failure to comply with the Order to Compel should be treated as contempt of
court under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), and that sanctions other than default judgment would suffice.

8

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4097 Page 9 of 13

Plaintiffs filed an objection. (See Pls.’ Objection to Magistrate’s Report &
Recommendation, ECF No. 236 (“Objection”).) Although they agree with a majority of the
R&R, they object to some of the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact, his rejection of default
judgment as a sanction, and his recommendation concerning incarceration. They also propose an
alternative sanction in the event the court does not enter default judgment: “[T]he Court should
prohibit Mr. Bowser from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from
introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Objection at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A)(ii)).)
Standard of Review
The court must review, de novo, those parts of the R&R the Plaintiffs challenge. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring district court to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions”); Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1462 (10th Cir.
1988) (“While magistrates may hear dispositive motions, they may only make proposed findings
of fact and recommendations, and district courts must make de novo determinations as to those
matters if a party objects to the magistrate’s recommendations.”)
Plaintiffs’ Objection
Plaintiffs question the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings. They contend that he
incorrectly judged the level of prejudice they suffered and the level of Mr. Bowser’s bad faith,
and, consequently, incorrectly determined that a sanction short of default was warranted.
According to Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge erred when he found that “Plaintiffs already
have all responsive documents that were in Mr. Bowser’s possession through the bankruptcy

9

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4098 Page 10 of 13

trustee.” (See Objection at 3 (quoting R&R at 11).) They reason that the finding “relies on the
[incorrect] premise that Mr. Bowser cooperated fully with the bankruptcy trustee and did not
withhold documents.” (Id. at 4.)
In support of their argument, they point to exhibits Mr. Bowser attached to his February
8, 2021 brief opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. There, he relies on a
voluminous set of exhibits5 containing responsive documents that, according to Plaintiffs, should
have been produced to the bankruptcy trustee. Consequently, they argue, the Magistrate Judge
erred. (See id. at 4–5.) But that information was not available to the Magistrate Judge because
Mr. Bowser filed his opposition after the show-cause hearing. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge did not have an opportunity to evaluate the details of that claim when determining which
facts to certify. Because the Magistrate Judge is most familiar with the scope of discovery
requests and responses at issue, the court will not consider it now. If, however, Mr. Bowser has
submitted undisclosed yet responsive documents to support his opposition to the motion for
summary judgment, Plaintiffs are free to raise that issue in the summary judgment proceedings.
The Magistrate Judge also concluded that “Mr. Bowser’s lack of specificity under Rules
33 and 34 has not been significantly prejudicial to Plaintiffs moving the case along.” (R&R at
11.) Plaintiffs object to that finding as well, stressing their need for a complete set of evidence to
prosecute their claims against Mr. Bowser and the other parties.6 They also vaguely say Mr.
Bowser’s contempt negatively affected their ability to identify additional defendants.
The Magistrate Judge rightly questioned “how prejudicial Mr. Bowser’s lack of

5

He attached 5 GB of documents, including 3,603 files and 278 folders. (Objection ¶ 3.)
During the hearing, Plaintiffs also complained that the fact discovery deadline was fastapproaching. That deadline has since been extended by six months. (See Mar. 9, 2021 Minute
Entry ECF No. 241; Mar. 15, 2021 Docket Text Order ECF No. 243.)
6

10

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4099 Page 11 of 13

specificity has been to Plaintiffs. After all, during oral argument, Plaintiffs stated that they were
prepared to file their motion for summary judgment even without Mr. Bowser’s responses.” (Id.
at 11.) Indeed, Plaintiffs have filed that motion against Mr. Bowser. The prejudice was not so
great that the harsh sanction of default judgment is warranted.
Plaintiffs emphasize the finding that “Mr. Bowser has been pervasively nonresponsive to
Plaintiffs’ discovery request and their attempts to communicate.” (Objection at 3 (quoting R&R
at 11).) But that finding is tempered by the Magistrate Judge’s caveat that “only one discovery
order has been entered to date, and this is the court’s first attempt to enforce the order.” (R&R at
11.)
They take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s excusal of Mr. Bowser’s reliance on advice
of his former attorney to determine how to respond to the discovery requests. But it is
reasonable to expect a pro se defendant with no legal knowledge to act in a way that his previous
attorney advised at the time of representation. Although Plaintiffs question the veracity of Mr.
Bower’s explanation at the hearing, the Magistrate Judge found the explanation credible, and the
court will not second-guess that credibility determination.
Finally, Plaintiffs express concerns that incarceration of Mr. Bowser would not coerce
him to comply with the court’s orders and would only prevent him from collecting responsive
documents. (Objection at 11.) But, as discussed below, their concerns are not warranted at this
time.
Mr. Bowser is in Contempt of Court for Failing to Obey the Order to Compel.
To obtain a finding of civil contempt, a plaintiff must prove liability by clear and
convincing evidence that a valid court order existed, that the defendant had knowledge of the
order, and that the defendant disobeyed the order.” FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 756–57

11

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4100 Page 12 of 13

(10th Cir. 2004). Based on the facts certified by the Magistrate Judge, the court finds that Mr.
Bowser is in contempt for violating the order compelling him to respond fully to the discovery
requests (the Order to Compel).
Mr. Bowser’s Contempt Warrants the Recommended Sanctions at This Time.
Plaintiffs maintain that default judgment is the only appropriate remedy for Mr. Bowers’
contempt:
If the Court were to merely hold Mr. Bowser in contempt and order monetary
penalties, Plaintiffs are convinced that Mr. Bowser would ignore those sanctions,
just as he has ignored the Court’s previous orders, and continue to impede
discovery and the resolution of this case. Therefore, the Court should hold Mr.
Bowser in civil contempt, and strike his answer and enter default judgment
against him.
(Pls.’ Mot. for OSC at 12.)
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s approach and reasoning that at this point,
the harsh sanction of default judgment is not appropriate against a pro se defendant who was
facing a motion to compel for the first time. The same can be said of the alternative remedy
Plaintiffs propose in their Objection: an order prohibiting Mr. Bowser “from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.”
(Objection at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)).)
The Magistrate Judge proposed sanctions that are fairly designed to coerce Mr. Bowser to
comply. Each day of noncompliance brings a $100 fine. But, as the Magistrate Judge has made
clear to Mr. Bowser, if the fines do not provide Mr. Bowers with sufficient “incentive” to purge
himself of contempt, a stronger means of compelling compliance—incarceration—is available.
The Magistrate Judge has built into the R&R a well-defined limit on the court’s patience with
Mr. Bowser.

12

Case 2:19-cv-00277-TC-JCB Document 246 Filed 03/18/21 PageID.4101 Page 13 of 13

Whether incarceration, or some other sanction such as default judgment, is warranted in
the future remains to be seen. But if Mr. Bowers continues his contumacious conduct after three
weeks of fines have accrued, the court will address that issue. For now, the sanction remains
monetary.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Objection is overruled, and the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 227) is adopted as the order of this court. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to send this Order & Memorandum Decision to Mr. Bowser through certified mail with
a return receipt to the address on file with the court. Fines will begin to accrue on March 20,
2021, if Mr. Bowser does not comply.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge

13