Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03983/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03983-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adrien Joshua Espinoza,

Plaintiff

-vsCharles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-17-3983-PHX-ROS (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

on Motion for Sanctions

A. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Under consideration is Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions filed November 12, 2019 

(Doc. 181) seeking a dismissal or other sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to provide 

discovery as ordered. 

This matter is before the undersigned magistrate judge on referral for pretrial 

proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because the appropriate resolution of 

screening of the amended plea is dispositive of some of Plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned 

proceeds by way of a Report & Recommendation to the referring district judge, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

B. BACKGROUND

1. Nature of Litigation

Plaintiff commenced this case on October 27, 2017 by filing a Motion for Leave 

File Excess Pages (Doc. 1) and lodging a proposed Complaint (Doc. 2). With a ruling 

being issued, on March 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 9). 

On screening, the Court dismissed without prejudice Counts One, Two, Three, and 

Four and Defendants Lyons, Jaeger, Franco, Does 1-20, Mangan, McClincy and Osler. 

The Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently stated First Amendment mail and retaliation 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 13
- 2 -

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

claims against Defendants Ramos, T. Williams, Ryan, Curran, Montano, Quintero, Sieger, 

and Curtis in Count Five based on the allegation that these Defendants prohibited Plaintiff 

from receiving all publications, regardless of the content, after Plaintiff told Defendants 

that was going to file a lawsuit if they failed to allow him to receive issues of the magazines 

to which he subscribed. The Court also found that Plaintiff sufficiently stated an Eighth 

Amendment claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in Count Six against 

Defendants Ryan, Montano, Curran, R. Williams, and Knight, based on allegations that 

Plaintiff had been confined to cells and pods infested with cockroaches. (Order 6/12/18, 

Doc. 17.) 

Defendants were eventually served, and on September 25, 2018 the Court issued a 

Scheduling Order (Doc. 32). However, on December 16, 2018, the Court vacated the 

unexpired portions of the schedule, finding that Plaintiff had been transferred to a mental 

health unit and placed on a mental health watch, and Plaintiff’s resulting inability to 

participate in the litigation. (Order 2/7/19, Doc. 67.) Eventually, Plaintiff’s custody was 

changed, and the Court reinstated the remainder of the schedule. (Order 5/7/19, Doc. 93.) 

2. Discovery Dispute

In the meantime, on January 14, 2019, Defendants had served discovery requests

on Plaintiff, including Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Plaintiff did not 

respond.

On June 13, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 101), seeking 

responses to their discovery requests. The Court denied that motion without prejudice, 

finding Defendants’ concerns about potential impacts on Plaintiff’s mental status from

attempts to confer did not justify failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

37(a)(1) and 37(d)(1)(B), or Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). On the potential that, 

because of Plaintiff’s transfers and mental health issues and the intervening stay, he had

become confused about the deadline to respond, the Court set a deadline of June 28, 2019 

for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. The Order cautioned:

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 13
- 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

PLAINTIFF IS CAUTIONED that aside from being subject to an 

award of expenses (including attorneys fees) in the event a motion to 

compel is granted, his failure to comply with an order compelling 

discovery may result in a variety of sanctions, up to and including 

dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37. 

(Order 6/17/19, Doc. 102.) 

On July 12, 2019 (14 days after the deadline), Plaintiff filed a Notice of Service

(Doc. 119, 120), which had appended to it copies of Defendants’ Interrogatories, with 

various responses and objections written in, but no signatures, and no certificate of service. 

Many of the objections were that the interrogatories, requests, or instructions were too 

complicated to answer without counsel, referring to unspecified documents. With regard 

to the requests for production, Plaintiff responding he had a stack of documents, 

complaining the prison would not copy them, and offering to send the stack if counsel 

would return the originals. 

On August 5, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 136). Plaintiff 

responds that he served responses to the discovery requests (referencing his 

Notice/Motion, Docs. 119, 120), and Defendants are just disgruntled with his response. 

The Court found that Plaintiff had failed to respond to the discovery requests because: (a) 

his responses were untimely; (b) his responses were unsigned; (c) his objections to the 

requests were unfounded; (d) he failed to identify specific documents purportedly provided 

as responses; and (e) his unfulfilled proffer of a “stack of documents” was insufficient and 

responsive documents had to be identified to particular requests. The Court granted the 

motion, gave Plaintiff 21 days to fully respond to the requests, and cautioned:

Caution – Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to fully and 

adequately respond to the discovery requests will result in sanctions, 

including: 

(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 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 13
- 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

(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. Proc. 37(b)(2)(A). Given the pervasive lack of response, 

the Court will be inclined more to dismissal. 

The Court also cautions Plaintiff that any further objections to 

these discovery requests are deemed waived, and cannot now be 

asserted in the responses mandated by this Order. See Richmark 

Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 

1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery 

requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any 

objection.”); Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 

189 F.R.D. 655, 662 (D. Kan. 1999) (“When ruling upon a motion to 

compel, the court generally considers those objections which have 

been timely asserted and relied upon in response to the motion. It 

generally deems objections initially raised but not relied upon in 

response to the motion as abandoned.”). Accordingly, no objections 

will suffice to avoid sanctions, only full and complete responses. 

Accordingly, in evaluating the adequacy of his responses, 

Plaintiff should take into account that the Court will generally not 

afford Plaintiff a third bite at the apple of compliance. 

(Order 10/1/19, Doc. 169 at 5 (emphasis in original).) With particular regard to the 

Requests for Production and the proffer of a stack of documents, the Court instructed:

Moreover, the documents must be produced in a responsive 

manner, i.e. with the response to each request designating the 

documents being produced in response. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

34(b)(E)(i) (“party must produce documents as they are kept in the 

usual course of business or must organize and label them to 

correspond to the categories in the request”). It is generally not 

sufficient to simply produce a “stack of documents” and leave it to 

Defendants to discern which documents relate to which request. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s responses to the requests for production must 

specifically identify for each request which documents or sub group 

of documents if offered in response. 

(Id. at 4.) 

Instead of complying, Plaintiff appealed that Order to the District Judge (Doc. 171). 

On October 24, 2019, the Court denied the appeal, finding no clear error, and cautioned: 

“To be clear, Plaintiff must comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order regarding the 

discovery sought by Defendants.” (Order 10/24/19 Doc. 174 at 3.) Plaintiff filed a Motion 

for Reconsideration (“Objection”) (Doc. 179) of the District Judge’s order, complaining 

of threats for sanctions for baseless motions. That motion was denied, citing the obligation 

of pro se litigants to comply with the rules, including Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11. 

(Order 11/26/19, Doc. 188.)

On the same date as the denial of his appeal (Doc. 174), Plaintiff filed a Notice of 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 13
- 5 -

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

Service dated October 23, 2019 (Doc. 176), purporting to respond to Defendants’ 

discovery requests. At the same time, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend (Doc. 180) 

seeking an unspecified extension of time to “file the remainder of his [responses to] 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production,” citing as cause delays in prison staff making 

legal box exchanges. Defendants responded (Doc. 180), arguing that Plaintiff had since 

served the same responses to interrogatories previously served, and hundreds of pages of 

disorganized documents and no written response to the requests for production. 

Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s motion fails to explain why no real updates have been 

provided and no written production responses, and that Plaintiff has made it clear he does 

not intend to provide meaningful discovery responses. Plaintiff did not reply, and on 

November 25, 2019, the Court denied the motion to extend, finding no excusable neglect 

because of: (a) prejudice to defendants; (b) delay given the time already allowed for 

Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests; (c) bad faith given Plaintiff’s “having served 

the same interrogatory responses and a hodgepodge of non-responsive documents, and his 

failure to reply in support of his motion”; and (d) Plaintiffs’ reason for delay (lack of access 

to his legal files) was not supported by the record, and did not explain his failure to provide 

written responses to the request for discovery or to make any attempt to update his 

interrogatory responses. (Order 11/25/19, Doc. 187.) 

C. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1. Parties’ Arguments

In the meantime, on November 12, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion for 

Sanctions (Doc. 181). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

Court’s Order to respond to their discovery requests by providing any meaningful 

additional responses. They argue dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate sanction 

because: (a) a stay would not be effective given Plaintiff’s persistent failure to comply; (b) 

it leaves the opportunity for Plaintiff to litigate if he is subsequently able to martial his 

facts; (c) any other sanction would ultimately lead to dismissal.

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 13
- 6 -

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

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Response (Doc. 189), opposing sanctions 

based on: (1) his transfer on November 14, 2019 to the Fourth Avenue Jail and resulting 

loss of access to his files; (2) financial sanctions should be considered despite his 

indigency, citing occasional deposits to his inmate account (but acknowledging levies by 

the Courts are being deducted); (3) he fairly responded by providing documents, arguing 

they were “very-well organized” in three manila envelopes, and proposing they may have 

been put in disarray by prison staff; (4) for six or seven weeks prior to his November 14, 

2019 transfer, he had been unable to obtain legal box exchanges from prison staff, leaving 

him without access to about half his legal work; (5) defense counsel has not attempted to 

resolve Plaintiff’s difficulties with prison staff; (6) a stay would be an appropriate sanction 

given his problems with accessing his legal files.

On December 5, 2019, Defendants filed their Reply (Doc. 191). Defendants argue 

that: (a) lack of access to some of Plaintiff’s files does not excuse a failure to make any 

meaningful responses to discovery, particularly in light of the time allowed for him to 

prepare his discovery responses; (b) even assuming his documents had been organized, 

Plaintiff still failed to identify them so as to make them a meaningful response: (c) Plaintiff 

fails to offer any specifics about materials he has been denied access to, and fails to show 

how it prevents him from responding; (d) without meaningful responses to Defendants’ 

requests, Plaintiff cannot support his claims, and Defendants cannot defend against them; 

and (e) dismissal without prejudice is the most appropriate remedy.

2. Applicable Standard

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) provides in pertinent part:

(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party...fails to obey an 

order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 

26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue 

further just orders. They may include the following: 

(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; 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 13
- 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

(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.

The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanction. Von Brimer v. 

Whirlpool Corp., 536 F.2d 838, 843-44 (9th Cir. 1976). 

With regard to dismissal as a sanction, in Societe Internationale Pour 

Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958), the 

Supreme Court held that. although the question of whether dismissal should be ordered 

because of noncompliance with a discovery order depends exclusively upon Rule 37 and 

that there is no need to resort to Rule 41(b), there were due process concerns with a 

sanction that disposes of an entire action. Thus, where the drastic sanctions of dismissal 

or default are imposed, the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party's noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault, or bad faith. Fjelstad v. American Honda 

Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1985). 

Because the sanction of dismissal is such a harsh penalty, the district court must 

weigh five factors before imposing dismissal: (1) the public's interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. The first two of these factors favor 

the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a dismissal 

sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions. Henry 

v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993). 

3. Application to Current Motion

a. Failure to Obey Order

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) only applies where there is a failure “to obey an order to provide 

or permit discovery.” Here, there is no doubt that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

Court’s Order. Plaintiff has provided no additional responses to interrogatories, nor has 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 13
- 8 -

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

he provided a meaningful response to interrogatories.

Plaintiff protests that he served on Defendants a collection of documents that he 

had organized. But a Rule 34 request is not satisfied by simply serving a stack of 

documents, organized or dis-organized.

The party responding to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 request for production 

or inspection must serve a written response on every party, unless the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide otherwise or the court 

orders otherwise,2 within the time allowed for the response. The 

response (1) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or 

category of items to be inspected; (2) must specify a reasonable time, 

place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related 

acts; and (3) may specify the form or forms in which electronically 

stored information is to be produced. A party responding to a request 

for the production of documents has the responsibility to provide 

meaningful responses to the request and has the responsibility to 

review voluminous documents to identify those that are responsive to 

specific requests.

Ashworth, et. al. ̧ How to respond to request for production or inspection; service of 

response, 10A Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 26:591 (Nov. 2019 Update). 

Thus, Plaintiff was specifically cautioned in the Court’s Order compelling 

discovery that he was being required to produce the requested documents “in a responsive 

manner, i.e. with the response to each request designating the documents being produced 

in response.” (Order 10/1/19, Doc. 169 at 4 (emphasis in original).) Despite being 

cautioned that it was “not sufficient to simply produce a ‘stack of documents’ and leave it 

to Defendants to discern which documents relate to which request” (id.), Plaintiff did 

precisely that, producing a stack of documents with no written response to the 

interrogatories and no means for Defendants to identify which documents Plaintiff 

contended were responsive to which request.

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order. 

b. Responsibility for Failure

To justify dismissal, a failure to provide discovery must be due to willfulness, fault, 

or bad faith. Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1337. 

Here, Plaintiff’s failures have been willful and in bad faith. 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 13
- 9 -

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

Despite being ordered to provide full responses to interrogatories, Plaintiff has 

simple reserved the same objections.

Despite being cautioned that simply serving a stack of documents would not suffice 

as a response to requests for productions, Plaintiff has served a stack of documents. 

Plaintiff’s only defense is that he has lacked access to all of his files. As argued by 

Defendants, Plaintiff fails to point to any specific discovery request for which he has 

lacked the information necessary to respond. He also fails to identify any particular 

documents needed. 

Moreover, the nature of the interrogatories does not preclude any response without 

resort to documents. To be sure, documents may help supply dates and or other particulars, 

or evidentiary support. But Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts, even basic facts. 

This is so, even though he has had at least the documents he served on Defendants. 

And still he has offered no response to the interrogatories. And he makes no explanation 

for this failure. 

And he has filed to connect those same documents to the requests for production 

despite clear direction to not do so. 

Finally, Plaintiff complains largely of recent limitations on his access to his records. 

He fails to offer any plausible explanation why, given the time since service of these 

discovery requests, even taking into account his time on mental health watch, he has failed 

to secure the necessary documents to permit any meaningful response. 

The only reasonable conclusion is that Plaintiff willfully and in bad faith refuses to 

comply with the Court’s Order.

c. Dismissal Justified

Here, each of the relevant factors point to the appropriateness of dismissal.

(1). Expeditious Litigation / Docket Management

The first two factors, the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 13
- 10 -

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 court's need to manage its dockets, favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases. 

Henry, 983 F.2d at 948. 

Here, this litigation has now continued for some 16 months beyond the initial 

Scheduling Order, and some eight and a half months since the reinstated schedule. The 

disputed discovery requests were served more than a year ago, and the order compelling 

discovery was issued almost four months ago. 

Moreover, given the nature and pervasiveness of Plaintiff’s failure to provide 

discovery, this case is essentially stalled.

(2). Prejudice to Defendants

The prejudice to Defendants from Plaintiff’s noncompliance is clear. Plaintiff has 

wholly failed to respond to interrogatories, and has provided no written response or 

meaningful production of documents, in response to the requests for production. The 

interrogatories were not esoteric in nature. They simply asked Plaintiff to relate the facts 

on which his claims are based, and the documents that established or were relevant to those 

claims. (See Docs. 119, 120.) 

Without such basic information, Defendants are faced with going to trial with 

nothing more than the bare allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint. In effect, Plaintiff is 

attempting to force a trial by ambush. 

(3). Disposition on Merits

The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits leans ordinarily leans 

away from a dismissal. Again, however, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants basic 

discovery requests suggests that a fair disposition on the merits will not be possible. 

Instead, Plaintiff would be permitted to hide his facts until trial, leaving Defendants to 

develop a defense in the midst of trial.

(4). Less Drastic Sanctions

Plaintiff argues he should be subjected to “lesser sanctions,” in particular a stay or 

a financial sanction.

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 13
- 11 -

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

There is no reason to believe that a stay would be an effective sanction. Plaintiff 

has demonstrated he is content to extend this litigation indefinitely. He has engaged in 

baseless and circular motions for reconsideration, objections and appeals. (See e.g. Order 

10/24/19 Doc. 174 at 3 (“Over the course of this litigation, Plaintiff has filed repetitive 

motions for reconsideration, baseless appeals of orders issued by the Magistrate Judge, 

and ‘objections’ to orders issued by the undersigned. Those filings have lacked a legal or 

factual basis.”). The nature of his failures with respect to the discovery requests further 

indicates he has no desire to press this litigation to a conclusion.

There is likewise no reason to believe that financial sanctions would induce 

compliance. Plaintiff argues that his inability to immediately pay such sanctions should 

not be controlling. It is not. However, Plaintiff’s indigency is relevant to deciding whether 

financial sanctions would obtain compliance with the existing orders, and deter future noncompliance. A future payment appears less daunting than a present payment to all but the 

most fiscally conservative.

Moreover, in the Court’s Order denying the first Motion to Compel, the Court 

expressly cautioned Plaintiff that dismissal was a potential sanction. (Order 6/17/19, Doc. 

102 at 3.) In the Court’s Order granting the second Motion to Compel, the Court reviewed 

the sanctions in Rule 37(b)(2)(A), and expressly cautioned Plaintiff: “Given the pervasive 

lack of response, the Court will be inclined more to dismissal.” (Order 10/1/19 at 5.) 

Despite the warnings and clear directions in those orders, Plaintiff chose to flaunt the 

Court’s Order and provide unmeaningful supplemental responses. 

Finally, given the nature of Plaintiff’s failings, and their applicability to all of his 

claims, the remaining sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A) would be tantamount to a 

dismissal, or at least render a trial a futile proceeding, including: (i) factual determinations; 

(ii) preclusion of evidence; (iii) striking pleadings; (v) partial dismissal; and (vii) 

contempt. 

As argued by Defendants, the only reasonable, less drastic sanction is that the 

dismissal be without prejudice. 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 13
- 12 -

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

It is true that, given the intervening time, Plaintiff’s claims may be subject to a 

statute of limitations defense. Even so, Plaintiff may be able to avoid such a defense by 

arguing equitable tolling or other grounds for tolling. But such defenses would be more 

properly addressed in a new proceeding when Plaintiff is prepared to actually litigate his 

claims. 

(5). Weighing

Here, each of the relevant factors call for a dismissal, even the preference for a 

disposition on the merits. Accordingly, the undersigned will not only recommend the 

Motion for Sanctions be granted, but that a dismissal without prejudice be imposed as the 

sanction. 

D. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment.

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered 

a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver 

of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 

1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

In addition, the parties are cautioned Local Civil Rule 7.2(e)(3) provides that 

“[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and Recommendation 

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 13
- 13 -

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

issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.” 

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

(A) Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 181) be GRANTED.

(B) As a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 9) and this action 

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: January 24, 2020

17-3983o Order 20 01 24 re RR on MSanctions.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:17-cv-03983-ROS Document 192 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 13