Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAMELA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00805-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND 

MONETARY SANCTIONS

[Re: ECF 148]

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ Gyrus ACMI, LP (“Gyrus”) and Olympus 

Corporation of the Americas (“Olympus”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for terminating and 

monetary sanctions for the failure of Plaintiff Pamela Williams to appear for her deposition. Mot., 

ECF 148. After carefully considering the pleadings and the evidence submitted by the parties, and 

having had the benefit of oral argument on November 15, 2016, the Court GRANTS IN PART 

Defendants’ motion for monetary sanctions and DENIES Defendants’ motion for terminating 

sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2016, after a Court-imposed stay was lifted on August 31, 2016, and after 

Defendants had attempted to obtain Plaintiff’s deposition for nearly a year,1 Defendants noticed 

Plaintiff’s deposition for September 22, 2016. Ex. P to Mot., ECF 148-1. The next day, 

Defendants requested to meet with Williams for an in-person meet and confer meeting. Ex. Q to 

Mot., ECF 148-1. Plaintiff agreed to meet on September 12, 2016. Mot. 4; Ex. R to Mot., ECF 

148-1. Defendants’ counsel flew to Oakland to meet with Williams, who agreed to make herself 

 

1 Defendants have noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on six occasions. Mot. 1. 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

available for deposition on September 23, 2016. Mot. 4–5. After the in-person meeting, 

Defendants noticed Plaintiffs’ deposition for September 23, 2016. Mot. 5; Ex. S to Mot., ECF 

148-1. The day before the deposition was scheduled to begin, however, Williams informed 

Defendants’ counsel that she did not intend to appear because she was “in negotiations with new 

counsel.” Mot. 1. In response, Defendants informed Plaintiff of their intention to pursue all 

remedies available under the law. Id. 

Through the motion now before the Court, Defendants seek terminating sanctions and 

monetary sanctions for $6,757.88 to reimburse Defendants for the expenses they have incurred. 

Id. at 2. Specifically, Defendants seek monetary sanctions for the following expenses: (1) the nonrefundable cost of two hotel rooms at the Marriot in Downtown Oakland ($687.52) for September 

22, 2016; (2) four hours of attorney time incurred in preparing for deposition ($1,400); (3) the 

costs associated with defense counsel flying to Oakland to meet and confer with Plaintiff 

regarding a deposition date ($1,870.36, comprised of airfare and four hours of attorney time); and 

(4) a portion of the time spent bringing this motion for sanctions ($2,800). Mot. 10; DamronHsiao Decl. ¶¶ 31–34, ECF 148-1. 

The Court held a case management conference (“CMC”) on October 24, 2016, to discuss 

Defendants’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, among other pending motions. ECF 

163. At the CMC, the Court determined that Williams should be allowed the opportunity to cure 

the circumstances leading to the motion for terminating sanctions. Thus, the Court required the 

parties to propose a mutually acceptable date for Williams’ deposition. Upon that agreement, the 

Court memorialized that date in a court order requiring Williams to appear on November 3, 2016 

for her deposition. ECF 165. At the November 15, 2016, hearing, the parties advised the Court 

that Williams had fully complied with the order. Based upon her compliance, in opposition to 

Defendants’ motion, Williams argues that the Court should not grant Defendants’ motion. Opp’n 

3, ECF 167. In reply, Defendants contend that sanctions remain appropriate because Plaintiff 

could not cure the prejudice Defendants have suffered by now sitting for her deposition. Reply 

ISO Mot. 1, ECF 171. Regardless, and at a minimum, Defendants ask the Court to award 

monetary sanctions to reimburse them for the attorney’s fees and out-of-pocket expenses incurred 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

because of Plaintiff’s non-appearance at her deposition. Id. at 3. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to appear at her 

deposition, the court may impose any of the sanctions authorized under Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C). In lieu of, or in addition to, those sanctions, the court shall require the 

party failing to appear to pay the reasonable expenses (including attorney’s fees) caused by the 

failure, unless it concludes that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances 

make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). The Court may award monetary 

sanctions against the non-appearing party even when the failure to appear was negligent rather 

than willful. Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1985). Sanctions for failure to 

appear at a deposition may be imposed even absent a prior court order. See Henry v. Gill Indus., 

Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 1993) (repeated cancellations at the last minute constitute a 

failure to appear).

Circumstances must “overcome the strong policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits” to justify terminating sanctions. U.S. for Use & Ben. of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu 

Constr. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, the “harsh sanction” of 

dismissal, even for “a party’s repeated failure to appear for deposition,” is only proper when the 

failure “is due to the willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Stars’ Desert Inn Hotel & 

Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court must also consider: 

“(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.” Hyde & 

Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 

656 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

III. DISCUSSION

Here, there is no indication that Williams’ failure to attend her deposition was due to 

willfulness or bad faith. Although her failure was within her own control, the Court must consider 

her pro se status and the fact that the case upon which Defendants rely is distinguishable and 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

demonstrates that dismissal is not warranted. In the case cited, Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 

943 (9th Cir. 1993), the plaintiff willfully violated court orders to appear for deposition. Id. at 949 

(holding that dismissal was a proper sanction where plaintiff refused for eight months to be 

deposed, previous sanctions failed, and plaintiff otherwise thwarted discovery). In contrast, this 

Court has not previously sanctioned Plaintiff for discovery violations and, aside from her failure to 

appear at her deposition, there is no evidence that Williams has otherwise obstructed discovery. A 

terminating sanction is especially unjustified given that Williams did appear for her deposition on 

November 3, 2016. See, e.g., Baker v. Ace Advertisers’ Serv., Inc., 153 F.R.D. 38, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 

1992) (holding that courts may afford special solicitude to pro se litigants when considering the 

imposition of sanctions). 

Monetary sanctions, however, are warranted. See Curt-Allen: Of the Family Byron v. 

Lovick, No. C10-0609, 2010 WL 3122822, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2010) (“When faced with 

litigation abuses by a pro se party, a court ‘cannot . . . decline to impose a sanction where a 

violation has arguably occurred, simply because plaintiff is proceeding pro se.’” (citation 

omitted)). Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition five times before bringing this motion, and 

were only able to secure her compliance after bringing this motion and a court order. Moreover, 

Williams canceled her September 23, 2016, deposition with only 24 hours’ notice with no 

substantial justification—she could have rearranged her meeting with new counsel or notified 

Defendants sooner. At the hearing, in a last ditch effort to explain her failure to attend the 

deposition, Plaintiff argued that Defendants should have known that “anything” could have 

happened to make her miss her deposition, including a medical emergency. However, it was not 

just “anything” that caused Plaintiff to miss her deposition; but rather, it was her conscious 

decision to schedule a meeting during the noticed deposition. Plaintiff should pay Defendants’ 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of that decision. 

Here, Defendants seek $6,757.88 in attorney’s fees and costs attributed to Williams’ 

cancellation. Defendants cite a billing rate in excess of $350 per hour and claim (1) the nonrefundable cost of two hotel rooms at the Marriot in Downtown Oakland ($687.52) for September 

22, 2016; (2) four hours of attorney time incurred in preparing for Williams’ deposition ($1,400); 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(3) the costs associated with defense counsel flying to Oakland to meet and confer with Plaintiff 

regarding a deposition date ($470.36 for airfare and $1,400 for four hours of attorney time); and 

(4) a portion of the time spent bringing this motion for sanctions ($2,800). Mot. 10; DamronHsiao Decl. ¶¶ 31–34, ECF 148-1. The Court rules on each as follows:

1. The Court awards Defendants $687.52 for the non-refundable cost of two hotel 

rooms at the Marriot in Downtown Oakland for September 22, 2016. At the hearing, Williams 

suggested that this expense was unreasonable because Defendants chose counsel that was not local 

and because Defendants should have ensured their reservations were refundable. As to the former, 

a litigant has the right to counsel of their choice, see Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma LLC, No. 11-

cv-5236, 2014 WL 459714, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (acknowledging a client’s right to 

counsel of their choice), and there is no duty to select local counsel to reduce potential costs to the 

opposing party. As to the latter, Defendants explained that the reservations were refundable, but 

the hotel required at least 48 hours’ notice. Accordingly, the Court finds that this expense is 

reasonable.

2. The Court does not award Defendants attorney’s fees for the time incurred in 

preparing for Williams’ cancelled deposition because the preparation time was related to the 

deposition that occurred at a later date.

3. As to the $1870.36 requested by Defendants for airfare ($470.36) and four hours of 

attorney time ($1,400) associated with defense counsel’s flight to Oakland for the in-person 

meeting and the meeting itself, the Court awards Defendants $235.18—half of the cost of the 

airfare—and $350 for one hour of attorney time out of the requested four hours. The Court awards 

only a portion of the amount requested because the parties discussed more than the deposition at 

the meeting. See Ex. Q to Mot., ECF 148-1. Regardless of the success of discussion on those 

other matters, fees and costs are not appropriately awarded for efforts other than the failed 

deposition here at issue.2 

 

2

The Court finds that Defendants’ request for fees at a rate of $350 per hour is reasonable and 

entirely consistent with hourly rates charged in this district by attorneys of similar skill and 

experience. Moreover, Williams does not object to the rate requested.

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. The Court awards Defendants $1,400 for four hours of attorney time spent bringing 

this motion for sanctions. Although the motion was necessary to secure a deposition date, the 

Court awards only a portion of the amount requested because the Court is only granting the 

motion in part. 

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion for sanctions of attorney’s 

fees and costs and ORDERS Plaintiff Pamela Williams to pay $2,672.70 to Defendants as a 

sanction for failing to advise Defendants in a timely manner that she could not attend the 

September 23, 2016, deposition. Williams shall submit payment to Defendants’ counsel within 30 

days. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 197 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 6