Chen et al v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 341

ORDER denying Defendant U.S. Bank's 314 Motion to Dismiss Claims of bellwether plaintiff Rui Mao as a discovery sanction. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(LH) CC: Xinkai Li, Yue Gu, and Sima Muroff via mail on 8/13/2020.

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

Case No. C16-1109RSM

CHI CHEN, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13
14
15
16

ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S
MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF
PLAINTIFF RUI MAO 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et
al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to dismiss the claims of

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

bellwether plaintiff Rui Mao as a discovery sanction. Dkt. #314. Plaintiffs oppose. Dkt. #322.
There has been no request for oral argument.
The full procedural background of this matter need not be restated as this Motion mainly
deals with the back and forth of discovery attempts in the past year.
On May 9, 2019, U.S. Bank filed a Motion to Compel, noting, among other deficiencies,
that the vast majority of Plaintiffs including Mao did not appear to have produced their

25

complete email, WeChat, and other electronic communications. Dkt. #135. The Court granted

26

the Motion on June 28, 2019, and ordered Plaintiffs to produce all non-privileged documents

27

responsive to U.S. Bank’s requests within 30 days. Dkt. #147.

28
ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF RUI
MAO - 1

Plaintiff Mao was deposed in June of 2019. He indicated that he had not necessarily

1
2

preserved messages from WeChat and that he may have failed to preserve or produce relevant

3

emails. See, e.g., Dkt. #315-1 (“Mao Dep.”) at 74:22-75:14, 78:9-15, 219:8-12, and 219:25-

4

220:3. U.S. Bank decided to continue the deposition until the production deficiencies could be

5
6
7

cured.

On September 25, 2019, Mao made a supplemental production containing “107

documents, including 9 pages of WeChat communications, 13 emails, 26 documents attached to

8

emails, and numerous other documents that had not been previously produced by Mao.” Dkt.

9

#315 (“Larson Decl.”), ¶5.

10
11
12

On February 3, 2020, the Court issued an Order regarding a prior Order to Show Cause
re: Discovery.

Dkt. #238.

The Court expressly found that the original “noncompliant”

13

Plaintiffs (including Mao) had supplemented their prior discovery and “presented sufficient

14

evidence that their prior discovery failures were not willful or in bad faith.” Id. at 2. The Court

15

rejected the idea of dismissing these Plaintiffs and refused to issue further discovery sanctions at

16

that time. Id. U.S. Bank took no further steps to depose Mao as the COVID-19 pandemic

17
18
19

began to spread from China to the entire world, affecting the parties’ ability to conduct
depositions.

20

On April 9, 2020, the Court issued an Order Denying U.S. Bank’s Motion to Continue

21

Case Schedule and Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bellwether Trials. Dkt. #269. The Court

22
23
24

noted at that time that it “believes that the issues at trial will turn more on the actions of U.S.
Bank than on the acts or knowledge of Plaintiffs, and it appears that discovery has already been

25

completed in that regard. To the extent that the knowledge or actions of Plaintiffs is at issue, the

26

Court has no reason to believe those questions cannot be answered as to Plaintiffs who have

27

been deposed and otherwise completed discovery.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs state that, “[f]or over

28
ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF RUI
MAO - 2

1

five weeks – from April 9, 2020 to the May 18, 2020 discovery completion deadline in this case

2

– U.S. Bank’s counsel did not request or meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the

3

completion of any Plaintiff’s deposition, virtual or otherwise.” Dkt. #323 (“McDonald Decl.”),

4

¶ 3.

5
6
7

On May 7, 2020, the parties met and conferred regarding their Joint Bellwether Trial
Plan. Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed filing a joint request for a thirty-day abeyance of all case

8

deadlines, including the discovery completion deadline, pending the parties’ completion of a

9

mediation. McDonald Decl. at ¶ 4. U.S. Bank’s counsel refused to file the joint request,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

indicating they “expect [Plaintiffs] to timely complete [its] discovery as required.” McDonald
Decl. at ¶ 5.
On May 15, 2020, one business day before close of discovery, Plaintiffs proposed Mao
as a bellwether plaintiff. Larson Decl. at ¶ 10.
Between May 14, 2020 and May 18, 2020, Plaintiffs completed five party and thirdparty depositions over the course of three days. McDonald Decl. at ¶ 6. Then, on May 21,

17
18

2020, three days after the discovery completion deadline, U.S. Bank for the first time requested

19

Plaintiffs’ counsel make Mao available for a second deposition. McDonald Decl. at ¶ 7; Larson

20

Decl. at ¶ 12. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused.

21
22
23
24

On June 16, 2020, U.S. Bank brought the instant Motion to dismiss Mao’s claims as a
discovery sanction under Rules 41 and 37. Dkt. #314.
Dismissal is a harsh penalty, imposed only in extreme circumstances. Malone v. United

25

States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Where a court considers dismissal as a

26

remedy for failure to comply with a court order, the court is to consider: “(1) the public’s

27

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the

28
ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF RUI
MAO - 3

1

risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

2

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

3

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone, 833 F.2d at 130).

4

The “factors are ‘not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a

5
6
7

‘way for a district judge to think about what to do.’” Id. (quoting Valley Eng'rs Inc. v. Elec.
Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Additionally, the Court should consider the

8

willfulness of the conduct. Henry v Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1995)

9

(“‘disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant’ is all that is required

10
11
12

to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault”) (citations omitted).
The Court finds that U.S. Bank has been dilatory in bringing this Motion on several

13

fronts. First, the Court has already addressed many of U.S. Bank’s arguments about Mao’s

14

discovery responses in prior Orders. To the extent that a discovery dispute remained, U.S. Bank

15

should have brought a motion prior to the close of discovery. Even after the selection of Mao as

16

a bellwether plaintiff, U.S. Bank waited several weeks to bring the instant Motion.

17
18

Further, the Court is not convinced, based on the balance of the evidence, that it was

19

entirely Plaintiff Mao’s fault that a second deposition was not scheduled in a timely fashion.

20

This cuts against the willfulness of the conduct.

21
22
23
24

The Court notes that the proposed sanction—dismissal—is clearly an inappropriate
remedy. Considering the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s
need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to U.S. Bank, the public policy favoring

25

disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions, it is clear that a

26

Court-ordered second deposition of Mao is a much more appropriate sanction. However, U.S.

27

Bank does not move for this relief, calling it “an option [] no longer available to U.S. Bank.”

28
ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF RUI
MAO - 4

1
2

Dkt. #314 at 14. The suggestion in Plaintiffs’ Response brief that this would be an appropriate
sanction falls on deaf ears.

3

Given all of the above, the Court finds that U.S. Bank has failed to meet its burden for

4

obtaining the relief it requests. Having considered the applicable briefing submitted by the

5
6
7
8

parties and the entire record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant U.S. Bank’s
Motion to dismiss bellwether Plaintiff Rui Mao as a discovery sanction, Dkt. #314, is DENIED.
DATED this 12th day of August, 2020.

9
10
11
12
13

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF RUI
MAO - 5