Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05502/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05502-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LYDDON, Case No. 1:03-cv-5502 OWW TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT

v. HILARIO ALONSO CUELLAR-ABUNDIZ

TO ATTEND HIS DEPOSITION; ORDER TO 

ALFONSO ROCHA-ALBERTSEN PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; AND ORDER 

AND HILARIO ALONSO CUELLAR AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES

ABUNDIZ, et al.,

(Doc. 107)

Defendants.

 /

On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court requesting the following action:

(1) an order compelling Defendant Hilario Alonso Cuellar-Abundiz (“Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz”)

to attend his deposition; and (2) an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff $5,515.00 as

reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this proceeding. (Doc.

107). At the time of the hearing on the motion on September 6, 2005, counsel for Plaintiff withdrew

his request for Defendants to pay $1,515.00 in costs but maintained his request for attorney’s fees in

the amount of $4,000.00

Defendants failed to respond to or otherwise oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and did not appear at

the September 6, 2005 hearing on the motion.

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2004 Plaintiff served deposition notices on Defendants setting the deposition of 

Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz at 9:00 a.m. on July 16, 2004 and the deposition of Defendant Alfonso 

Rocha-Albertsen (“Defendant Rocha-Albertsen”) at 1:30 p.m. on July 16, 2004. (Doc. 107, Attach. 

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 109 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 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

2

2, Exh. 1). 

On July 13, 2004, Plaintiff received correspondence from Defendants’ counsel indicating that

they would not appear at the July 16, 2004 deposition. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2, Exh. 2). On August 25,

2004, Plaintiff subsequently reset Defendants’ depositions for September 27, 2004. (Doc. 107,

Attach. 2, Exh. 5). Defendants objected to the rescheduled depositions and, on September 23, 2004,

indicated they would refuse to appear at the September 27, 2004 depositions. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2,

Exh. 7).

On September 24, 2004, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, requesting his 

assistance to resolve the discovery issue. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2, Exh. 10). On September 24, 2004,

District Judge Wanger held a telephonic conference with appearances from counsel for Plaintiff,

Roger K. Vehrs, Esq., and counsel for Defendants, Diana R. Griffiths, Esq. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2,

Exh. 11). District Judge Wanger ordered the depositions to go forward as noticed, i.e., at 9:00 a.m.

on September 27, 2004, in Tijuana, Mexico for Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz and at 1:30 p.m. on

September 27, 2004, in Tijuana, Mexico for Defendant Rocha-Albertsen. (Doc. 103).

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he arrived in Tijuana, Mexico on September 27, 2004, but

that Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz was not available for his 9:00 a.m. deposition. (Doc. 107, Attach. 1,

p. 2). Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he waited approximately one hour for Defendant CuellarAbundiz to arrive and was later told that he would not appear. ( Doc. 107, Attach. 1, p. 2). The 

deposition of Defendant Rocha-Albertson was conducted as scheduled at 1:30 p.m. on September

27, 2004. (Doc. 107, Attach. 1, pp. 2-3).

On October 5, 2004, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants’ counsel memorializing

Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’ failure to appear at his scheduled deposition. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2,

Exh. 12). On October 28, 2004, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants’ counsel requesting

a response to his October 5, 2004 letter and indicating his intent to file a motion to compel

Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’ presence at a new deposition. (Doc. 107, Attach. 2, Exh. 13).

Plaintiff’s counsel declares in his August 1, 2005 motion to compel that he has not been

provided with an explanation for Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’s failure to appear at his deposition,

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 109 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 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

1As indicated above, at the time of the September 6, 2005 hearing on the motion, counsel for Plaintiff withdrew

his request for $1,515.00 in costs, but maintained his request for $4,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

3

Defendants’ counsel has not voluntarily produced him, and Plaintiff’s counsel has not received any

communication from Defendants’ counsel as to his intentions. (Doc. 107, Attach. 1, p. 3).

Plaintiff requests $4000.00 in attorney fees due to Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’s failure to

appear at his 9:00 a.m. deposition on September 27, 2004 in Tijuana, Mexico.1 (Doc. 107, Attach. 1,

p. 4).

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) provides that if a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition,

“the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as

are just.” “In lieu of any order or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to act or

the attorney advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

caused by the failure unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). “If a deponent fails to be

sworn . . . after being directed to do so by the court in the district in which the deposition is being

taken, the failure may be considered a contempt of that court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1).

On September 24, 2004, District Judge Wanger ordered the deposition of Defendant CuellarAbundiz to go forward as noticed, at 9:00 a.m. on September 27, 2004, in Tijuana, Mexico. (Doc.

103). However, on September 27, 2004, Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz failed to appear for his

deposition. (Doc. 107, Attach. 1, p. 2). Accordingly, Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz failed to appear

for a properly noticed deposition after being ordered to do so by the District Court. The undersigned 

finds that the failure to appear was not substantially justified, and Defendants have not shown 

circumstances making an award of expenses unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover

attorney’s fees of $4,000.00 for Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’ failure to appear at his deposition. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’ appearance at a new deposition is

GRANTED, and Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz is ordered to appear for his deposition on September

22, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. at the Hotel Lucerna, Blvd. Paseo de los Heroes Y, Tijuana, 22320, MX, and

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 109 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 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

2

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery” a court

“may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,” including to:

A. Designate facts as established;

B. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibit

the disobedient party from introducing designated matters in evidence; 

C. Strike out pleadings or parts thereof, stay further proceedings until an order is obeyed, or dismiss an

action, proceeding or any part thereof; or render judgment by default; and

D. Treat the failure to obey as a contempt of court. 

4

to produce the following documents at such deposition, referred to collectively as the “identified

documents”:

(a) The original promissory note alleged to be owing between Plaintiff and Defendant; 

(b) Any copies of said promissory note which bear or have any handwritten notes upon them; 

(c) Copies of any and all documents that represent any financial transactions by Defendant

Cuellar-Abundiz to purchase a promissory note from Defendant Rocha-Albertsen; 

(d) Copies of any invoices or bills evidencing any monies that would be owed to Defendant

Rocha-Albertsen for legal services provided to Plaintiff; and 

(e) Copies of any contracts or other written documents that evidence a written agreement to

pay Defendant Cueller-Abundiz fees for legal services in connection with Plaintiff’s business

interest in the United States or Mexico. 

Further, Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz is ordered to pay $4,000.00 to Plaintiff no later than

twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. 

Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz and his counsel are admonished that Defendant CuellerAbundiz’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 CuellarAbundiz for his failure obey a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Such sanctions may

include an order striking Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’s answer and entering his default

judgment.2

///

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 109 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 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

5

ORDERS

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz’ appearance at a new

deposition (Court Doc. 107) is GRANTED.

2. Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz is ordered to appear for his deposition on September 22,

2005, at 9:00 a.m. at the Hotel Lucerna, Blvd. Paseo de los Heroes Y, Tijuana, 22320,

MX, and to produce the identified documents at such deposition. 

3. Defendant Cuellar-Abundiz is ordered to pay $4,000.00 to Plaintiff no later than

twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05502-OWW -TAG Document 109 Filed 09/08/05 Page 5 of 5