Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05502/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05502-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LYDDON,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ALFONSO ROCHA-ALBERTSEN, et

al., 

 Defendants.

1:03-CV-05502 OWW TAG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

This is a dispute between Plaintiff John Arthur Lyddon

(“Lyddon”) and two attorneys, Hilario Alonso Cuéllar Abúndiz

(“Cuéllar”)and Alfonso Rocha-Albertsen (“Rocha”), who represented

Lyddon in various legal matters in Mexico. Before the court for

decision is Plaintiff’s post trial motion to strike Cuéllar’s

trial testimony. This motion is more properly treated as a

sanctions motion against Defendant Cuéllar for continued failure

to pay court-ordered sanctions, the latest issued on May 31,

2006. 

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2006 the court issued an order granting

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and attorneys fees. (Doc. 236,

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Mot. for Sanctions, Filed May 31,

2005). Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the testimony of

Cuéllar on May 31, 2006. (Doc. 237, Mot. to Strike Testimony,

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 The order also compelled Cuéllar to produce several 1

documents for discovery. 

2

Filed May 31, 2006). Defendant Cuéllar opposes the motion. 

(Doc. 239-1, Opp. to Mot. to Strike Testimony, Filed July 3,

2006). 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2005 Plaintiff made a motion to compel

Defendant Cuéllar’s appearance for his deposition after Cuéllar

failed to appear at a noticed deposition initially arranged in

Tijuana, Mexico on September 27, 2004. (Doc. 107., Mot. to

Compel) In his motion Plaintiff requested monetary sanctions to

cover the expenses counsel incurred in a fruitless trip to

Mexico. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Goldner issued an order

compelling defendant Cuéllar to appear for a new deposition.1

(Doc. 109, Order, filed Sept. 8, 2005.) Defendant Cuéllar was

ordered to pay $4,000.00 to Plaintiff and was issued the

following warning:

Defendant Cuéllar and his counsel are

admonished that Defendant Cuéllar-Abundiz’s

failure to comply with this Order by failing

to attend his deposition on September 22,

2005, by failing to produce the identified

documents at such deposition, or by failing

to timely pay Plaintiff the sum of $4,000.00,

will result in this Court’s recommendation to

the District Court that issue and/or

terminating sanctions be issued against

Defendant Cuéllar for his failure to obey a

court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).

Such sanctions may include an order striking

Defendant Cuéllar’s answer and entering his

default judgment.

(Id. at 4.) 

On September 2, 2005 Plaintiff deposed Defendant Cuéllar but

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Cuéllar did not produce all documents ordered to be produced. 

Cuéllar’s deposition was also frustrated by Cuéllar’s refusal to

answer questions on advice of his counsel. In addition,

Defendant apparently failed to pay the previously court-ordered

$4,000.00 sanctions. 

Plaintiff filed another motion for sanctions, requesting a

court order compelling Cuéllar to complete the production of

documents and answer the objected to deposition questions. (Doc.

119-1, Mot. for Sanctions, Filed October 11, 2005.) Plaintiff

also requested an additional $4,000.00 in sanctions to cover the

cost of the anticipated second follow-up, deposition of Cuéllar

in Tijuana, Mexico. 

The magistrate judge granted this motion for additional

sanctions, specifically identifying the documents Cuéllar failed

to produce in response to the previous court order, and ordering

him to produce those documents, along with certain others. (Doc.

159, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Mot. for Sanctions, Filed January

27, 2006.) Cuéllar was ordered to pay the past-due $4,000.00 in

sanctions by November 4, 2005 and, if the $4,000.00 was not paid

by that date, an additional $500.00 per day for each day after

November 4 that the $4,000.00 remained unpaid. (Id.) The

magistrate judge again admonished defendant Cuéllar for his

repeated failures to comply with orders of the court. Cuéllar

was ordered to pay an additional $1,000.00 sanction and

compensate Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and deposition costs

incurred in attending Cuéllar’s continued deposition. (Id.) 

Once again, Cuéllar and his counsel were warned: 

Defendant Cuéllar and his counsel are again

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 7
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

admonished that Defendant Cuéllar’s failure

to comply with this Court’s Order by failing

to attend his Continued Deposition as ordered

herein, by failing to produce the identified

documents at the Continued Deposition, or by

failing to timely pay Plaintiff all sums

ordered pursuant to this Order, will result

in a recommendation to the District Court

that issue and/or terminating sanctions be

issued against Defendant Cuéllar for his

failure to obey a court order under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). Such sanctions may

include an order striking Defendant Cuéllar’s

answer and entering his default judgment.

At a hearing on May 16, 2006 Cuéllar claimed that he

complied with Judge Goldner’s September 6, 2005 order to pay

$4,000.00 to Plaintiff. (Doc. 236, Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Motion for Sanctions, Filed May 31, 2006). Defendant Cuéllar

states that the money was paid by wire to an account number

provided by Plaintiff’s attorney. (Id.) He further claims that

an additional $1,000 was paid by cashiers check to Plaintiff’s

attorney. (Id.) Plaintiff’s attorney confirmed at the hearing

on this motion that Defendant Cuéllar did, in fact, pay these

amounts, totaling $5,000.00. (Id.) However, there still

remained unpaid attorney’s fees for Defendant’s failure to appear

at his deposition on September 27, 2004 in Tijuana, Mexico. 

(Id.) Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees were calculated according to

the reasonable commercial rates of travel and expenses, and the

prevailing rates for comparably qualified attorneys. (Id.) A

dispute as to the amount of the charges was resolved based on

reasonable commercial rates of travel and lodging according to

the parties’ agreement in open court that Plaintiff is entitled

to the following attorney’s fees and expenses: 

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

One Night Accommodation at 

Hotel Lucerna in Tijuana, Mexico: $90.00

Cost of Spanish Interpreter: $750.00

Cost of Deposition Transcript: $1,786.50

Cost of Deposition Videographer: $792.50

Attorneys Fees for Travel Time and Deposition: $2,500.00

Total Amount of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses: $5,919.00

Cuéllar was ordered to pay this amount by May 25, 2006 by

cashiers or certified check to Roger K. Vehrs, Esq. Cuéllar has

not paid this amount, to date. 

4. DISCUSSION

Cuéllar argues that he has not paid the $5,919.00 amount

because he does not have the money to pay it. As proof of his

lack of funds, Cuéllar has submitted a copy of his bank statement

which indicates that he only has $19.00 as of his last monthly

statement. (Doc. 239-3, Dec. of Cuéllar, Exhibit, Filed May 31,

2006). Cuéllar argues that his failure to comply with the

sanctions order was not due to willfulness, bad faith, or other

fault. He further argues that his testimony should not be

stricken on account of his personal economic difficulties to pay

the sanctions. Instead, Cuéllar argues that the court should

enter the $5,919.00 as a judgment against him so that he could

make payments on the judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 permits the district court, in its

discretion, to enter a default judgment against a party who fails

to comply with an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C). In deciding whether a sanction of dismissal or

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

default for noncompliance with discovery is appropriate, the

district court must weigh five factors before declaring a

default: 1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation 2) the court's need to manage its docket 3) the risk

of prejudice to the other party 4) the public policy of favoring

the disposition of cases on their merits and 5) the availability

of less drastic sanctions. Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby,

364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, in order to

enter default as a sanction, the court must find willfulness or

bad faith. (Id.)

Litigation between the parties has been ongoing since 2003. 

This litigation has been bogged down by a series of Rule 12

motions, four subsequent amendments to the complaint, and

countless discovery disputes. It is in the public’s interest

that a final resolution on the merits be reached in this case,

which has been decided following a bench trial. Cuéllar’s

testimony during trial provides critical evidence that speaks to

the ultimate resolution of issues raised in the case. There is a

high risk of prejudice to all parties if Cuéllar’s testimony is

stricken. Alternately, Plaintiff has failed to show any

prejudice against him if Cuéllar’s testimony is not stricken. 

His primary concern is being reimbursed for our of pocket

expenses. Plaintiff has also failed to allege any willfulness or

bad faith on Cuéllar’s behalf in his failure to pay the ordered

amount. Cuéllar has failed to pay the $5,919.00 because he does

not have the money. The $5,919.00 amount will instead be entered

as a partial judgment against Cuéllar. 

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

5. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The

amount of $5,919.00 will be entered as a partial judgment against

Defendant Cuéllar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

dd0l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 254 Filed 10/27/06 Page 7 of 7