Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567-7/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

AFS Technologies, Inc.; Kurien Jacob;

Walter Barandarian; Kimberly Curtis;

Rebecca Barr; and Andi Romano,

Defendants/Counterclaimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2567-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Billy Taylor has filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants for failure

to issue a litigation hold and for spoliation of evidence (Doc. 163), and a motion for sanctions

against Defendants’ counsel for obstructing discovery and against individual Defendants for

allegedly making false statements under oath (Doc. 164). The Court will deny both motions.

A. Litigation Hold Motion.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose the most severe sanctions possible for Defendants’

alleged failure to issue a litigation hold in this case. The Court concludes that the motion is

premature. In ruling on a motion for spoliation of evidence, a Court must consider “both the

degree of culpability and the extent of prejudice.” Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v.

Cammarata, 688 F. Supp.2d 588, 613 (S.D.Tex. 2010). Discovery in this case is not

completed. The discovery deadline is October 29, 2010. Doc. 62. The Court concludes that

it cannot reasonably address prejudice at this stage of the litigation. The Court will deny

Plaintiff’s spoliation motion. Plaintiff may raise spoliation arguments in connection with

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 176 Filed 08/18/10 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 -

briefing on any motions for summary judgment, and may seek an adverse jury instruction or

other sanctions based on spoliation in a motion in limine filed before the final pretrial

conference.

B. Motion for Sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel and various defense witnesses

is not well taken. Doc. 164. Plaintiff identifies 18 allegedly false statements made by

defense witnesses during depositions. The alleged false statements concern matters as minor

as where an interview occurred, whether a particular individual participated in a telephone

call, when conversations occurred, and whether witnesses knew whether another individual

was in the office on a particular day. Doc. 164. 

Plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct against defense counsel are equally trivial.

Witness Kurien Jacob testified during his deposition that he was out of town on the day

Plaintiff was terminated. Jacob testified that he could not recall which city he was in on that

date, but it possibly was Boston. He testified that he was in the United States. Doc. 164 at

13-14. Plaintiff asks the Court to impose “severe” sanctions on defense counsel because she

has not required Jacob, post-deposition, to identify the precise city in which he was located

on the date of Plaintiff’s termination. 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions appears to be needlessly multiplying litigation in this

case. If Plaintiff disagrees with deposition testimony given by witnesses on relatively minor

points, or even on more significant points, he is free to challenge that testimony through his

own factual assertions, to impeach it through other evidence, and to cross-examine the

witnesses vigorously at trial. Plaintiff need not ask the Court, in the midst of discovery, to

wade into depositions, conduct an answer-by-answer evaluation of a witness’ credibility, and

affirmatively impose litigation sanctions. Nor should Plaintiff ask the Court to severely

sanction opposing counsel because she has failed to provide a relatively minor fact in this

case – the city where Jacob was located on the date Plaintiff was terminated. 

The Court views this motion as consistent with Plaintiff’s threat at the outset of this

litigation: “Discovery will be extremely intrusive in this case; Plaintiff anticipates that

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 176 Filed 08/18/10 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 -

Defendant may not be cooperative during discovery, which may prompt multiple motions to

compel information.” Doc. 38; see also Doc. 75 at 5. As the Court explained during the case

management conference, the Court is endeavoring to make the level of litigation in this case

proportionate to the amount in dispute. For this reason, the Court placed significant

restrictions on the amount of discovery in this case. Doc. 75. The Court will not entertain

motions seeking answer-by-answer sanctions for testimony given in litigation. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for failure to issue a litigation

hold and for spoilation (Doc. 163), and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defense

counsel and individual witnesses (Doc. 164), are denied.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 176 Filed 08/18/10 Page 3 of 3