Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02005/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The request for oral argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly discussed

the law and evidence and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Mahon v.

Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ryan Buckman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MCI World Com, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2005-PHX-DGC (JM)

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #30. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. #57. Responses and a reply have been filed. Dkt.

##54-55, 60. The Court will deny the motions.1

I. Background.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a telemarketing sales representative

beginning in February 2003. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in April 2004 for

alleged violations of Defendant’s attendance policy.

The State of Arizona indicted Plaintiff on charges of first degree murder in August

2005. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated in Maricopa County Jail pending trial.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendant in state court

in December 2005. Defendant removed the action to this Court. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff filed an

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 65 Filed 08/10/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

amended complaint alleging that Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act and

the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating his employment. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory and punitive damages, including lost wages, the cost of medical treatment for

his hepatitis C, and emotional distress damages. Dkt. #28.

Plaintiff was deposed on April 17, 2007. Plaintiff refused to answer questions

regarding his pending criminal case and other criminal matters based on his Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination. Dkt. #30-4, Ex. 1. Plaintiff sought a protective

order regarding criminal matters occurring more than one year after his termination on the

grounds of relevancy and his Fifth Amendment rights. Dkt. #24. Magistrate Judge

Jacqueline Marshall denied the request, concluding that Defendant was entitled to discover

Plaintiff’s incarceration records and criminal history. Dkt. #27. Plaintiff renewed his request

for a protective order. Dkt. #37. Judge Marshall denied the request. Dkt. #53.

II. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff has the right to assert his constitutional

privilege against self-incrimination and that the Court may not force Plaintiff to waive this

privilege with respect to his criminal case. Defendant contends, however, that assertion of

the privilege severely prejudices Defendant and that Plaintiff cannot both assert his Fifth

Amendment rights and pursue this lawsuit. Defendant argues that dismissal is the penalty

Plaintiff must pay for his silence. Dkt. #30.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “recognize an appropriate role for the exercise

of [the Fifth Amendment] privilege, and a refusal to respond to discovery under such

invocation cannot justify the imposition of penalties.” Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1265

(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)). “In this context, ‘penalty’ is not restricted

to fine or imprisonment.” Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515 (1976). It means, as the

Supreme Court stated in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), “the imposition of any

sanction which makes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ‘costly.’” Id.

“It is obvious that dismissal of [this] action is costly and therefore would not survive

the Griffin test.” Campbell v. Gerrans, 592 F.2d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 1979). Imposing the

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 65 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

harsh sanction of dismissal for “a proper exercise of Fifth Amendment rights is not in accord

with Supreme Court decisions.” Id. at 1057. The Court will therefore deny the motion to

dismiss.

Defendant’s reliance on Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1969), is misplaced.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in Lyons due to her “continued and

unyielding refusal” to respond to any discovery based on a blanket assertion of Fifth

Amendment rights. Id. at 541. Plaintiff has made no such assertion in this case. See

Campbell, 592 F.2d at 1057-58 (distinguishing Lyons and holding that the district court

abused its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment plea

during discovery).

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to add several former MCI

employees as defendants and to correct certain factual allegations. Dkt. #57. The Scheduling

Order provides that “[a]ll motions to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by

May 28, 2007.” Dkt. #11 ¶ 6 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s motion was filed on July 11,

2007, more than six weeks late.

Although Plaintiff argues that leave to amend should be liberally granted under

Rule 15, that is not the standard to be applied in resolving the present motion. Plaintiff’s

motion to amend was filed after the deadline set by the Court pursuant to Rule 16 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A deadline established under Rule 16 “shall not be

modified except upon a showing of good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The scheduling order

‘controls the subsequent course of the action’ unless modified by the court.”) (quoting Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(a)). “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite

the diligence of the parties seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.’s

Notes (1983 Am.).

Plaintiff states that he simply forgot to name the former MCI employees as defendants

and that discovery has revealed certain errors in the complaint. Dkt. #57. Plaintiff does not

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 65 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

explain, however, why he could not have named the employees or discovered the mistakes

prior to July 11, 2007. The complaint in this matter was filed on December 6, 2005. Dkt.

#1, Ex. A. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend his complaint prior to the deadline of

May 28, 2007. The Court will deny the motion to amend.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #30) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint (Dkt. #57) is denied.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 65 Filed 08/10/07 Page 4 of 4