Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Moore; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sean Garnand; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 19-00290 TUC RM (MAA)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on May 14, 2024, for sanctions

against the defendants’ counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2), 30(d)(3)(C) and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927. Doc. 484. The defendants filed a response on May 24, 2024. Doc. 495. The

plaintiffs did not file a reply.

The plaintiffs (“the Moores”) move that this court sanction the defendants’ counsel

for her conduct at the deposition of Detective Arnaud on May 8, 2024. Doc. 484. The

Moores argue that counsel improperly lodged too many “Rule 26(b)(1)” objections.

Discussion

Rule 30 discusses how depositions by oral examination should proceed. Fed.R.Civ.P.

“An objection at the time of the examination--whether to evidence, to a party’s conduct, to

the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of

the deposition--must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 506 Filed 07/09/24 Page 1 of 3
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 -

is taken subject to any objection.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). “An objection must be stated

concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” Id.

“The court may impose an appropriate sanction--including the reasonable expenses

and attorney’s fees incurred by any party--on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the

fair examination of the deponent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2). If there is a motion to terminate

or limit a deposition, expenses may be awarded pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5). Fed.R.Civ.P.

30(d)(3)(C).

“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United

States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably

and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses,

and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1927.

In the pending motion, the Moores argue that sanctions should be imposed against

counsel for the defendants. Doc. 484. They assert that, during the second Arnaud

deposition, counsel “objected on ‘Rule 26(b)’ grounds thirty-seven (37) times in twenty-three

(23) pages of testimony.” Doc. 484, p. 4 (emphasis in original). The Moores explain that

“in most instances, when Ms. Pace injected her objection, Mr. Arnaud paused, sometimes

looking at Ms. Pace for direction.” Id. They maintain that, “[a]t times, Ms. Pace’s objection

was injected as Mr. Arnaud had begun to answer, breaking up the answer, and sometimes

requiring him to re-do an answer.” Id.

The Moores argue that “Ms. Pace’s outrageous conduct interfered with the ability of

Plaintiffs to secure the evidence sought, in all instances suggesting to the witness that he need

not answer or could limit his answer, and caused the deposition to go well beyond what was

necessary had the interference not been made.” Doc. 484, p. 4. They move that this court

sanction the defendants’ counsel $100.00 for each Rule 26(b)(1) objection made during the

deposition as well as reasonable costs and attorney fees. Doc. 484.

On May 24, 2024, the defendants filed a response opposing the motion. Doc. 495.

They explain that defense counsel interposed her Rule 26(b)(1) objections to assert on the

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 506 Filed 07/09/24 Page 2 of 3
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 -

record that the plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions sought information beyond the proper scope

of discovery. Id. They maintain that the deposition transcript “reflects that every question

posed by attorney Moore to Mr. Arnaud was answered, and defense counsel neither directed

the witness not to answer, nor suggested to the witness that he need not answer a question.”

Doc. 495, p. 1.

The court finds that sanctions are not appropriate on this record. Though a “standing”

Rule 26(b) objection may have allowed the deposition to proceed more smoothly, it does not

appear that the objections offered by the defendants’ counsel were unreasonably disruptive.

The court notes that the deposition on this day, May 8, 2024, lasted only 27 minutes. Doc.

484-2, p. 3. It therefore appears that counsel’s objections caused minimal delay. The

Moores maintain that counsel’s objections might have caused the deponent to alter his

testimony, but they have not directed the court to any specific part of the transcript in support

of their assertion.

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on May 14, 2024, for sanctions

against the defendants’ counsel is DENIED. Doc. 484.

DATED this 8th day of July, 2024.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 506 Filed 07/09/24 Page 3 of 3