Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01132/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01132-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Lydia Marquez, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 08-1132-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion for Remedies Due to

Plaintiffs’ Failure to Pay Defendants’ Expert Witnesses (doc. #144), which the Court

denies. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) the Court may sanction a party for

failure to obey an order “to provide or permit discovery.” There is no question that

Plaintiffs disobeyed the Court’s January 22, 2010 order directing Plaintiffs to pay

Defendants’ experts’ fees. However, there is no authority for the proposition that striking

Plaintiffs’ experts is an appropriate sanction. 

It is not clear that Rule 37(b)(2) permits the Court to impose non-monetary

sanctions in these circumstances. Sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) may be imposed for

failure to obey an order “to provide or permit discovery.” Defendants do not complain

that Plaintiffs have deprived them of discovery. In all of the cases Defendants cite, nonmonetary sanctions were imposed due to a party’s failure to provide discovery. See

Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763-64 (1980) (failure to answer

Case 2:08-cv-01132-NVW Document 170 Filed 04/23/10 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 -

interrogatories); Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 540 F.3d 1031, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008)

(failure to produce expert report); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d

1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to produce expert report); Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec.

Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to produce documents); Adriana

Int’l. Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (repeated failure to

appear at depositions and produce documents); Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de

Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2001) (failure to

comply with automatic expert disclosure requirements and failure to answer

interrogatories); Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Education and Employment of

American Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 503-04 (4th Cir. 1998) (failure to respond to discovery

requests); O’Neill v. AGWI Lines, 74 F.3d 93 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to provide

information regarding basis for jurisdiction); Young v. Office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant

at Arms, 217 F.R.D. 61, 65 (D.D.C. 2003) (witness tampering); 

The only case cited by Defendants in which a court imposed sanctions solely for

violating a court order to pay expert fees is New York v. Solvent Chemical Co., 210

F.R.D. 462, 474 (W.D.N.Y. 2002), and the court in that case awarded attorneys’ fees and

costs–monetary sanctions. Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Co. v. Malachinski, No. 96 C

6135, 2001 WL 290308, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3362 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2001) is

similarly distinguishable. In that case, although there was a failure to pay expert fees,

non-monetary sanctions were imposed because the sanctioned party failed to obey three

separate orders from the judge directing the party to produce documents. Id. at *7, 2001

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3362 at *23. The failure to pay expert fees resulted in an award of

attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at *11-12, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3362 at *31-32. 

Even if Rule 37(b)(2) allows the Court to impose non-monetary sanctions for

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s January 22, 2010 order, striking Plaintiffs’

experts for failure to pay Defendants’ experts’ fees is unduly harsh. Defendants complain

that monetary sanctions are inadequate because Plaintiffs are indigent and there is no

Case 2:08-cv-01132-NVW Document 170 Filed 04/23/10 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 -

reasonable prospect of payment. However, a money judgment against Plaintiffs would

enable Defendants to collect eventually if, for example, Plaintiffs obtain damages at the

conclusion of this action. In any event, Defendants do not adequately explain why a

monetary sanction would not redress the economic harm they suffered.

Although the Court is willing to consider entering a money judgment against

Plaintiffs, Defendants have not asked the Court to do so. In fact, Defendants specifically

state that they are not required to seek this remedy. A money judgment in favor of

Defendants will be entered at the end of the case unless Defendants request one earlier. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion for Remedies Due

to Plaintiffs’ Failure to Pay Defendants’ Expert Witnesses (doc. #144) is denied. 

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01132-NVW Document 170 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3