Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00540/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00540-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-540 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[Docket No. 25]

Defendant American Airlines moves pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(b)(2) to dismiss this case as a

sanction for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the

Court's orders. Plaintiff Ian Williams opposes the motion. The

motion was decided on the papers. Having considered all of the

parties' papers, the Court grants in part Defendant's motion for

sanctions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on December 8,

2006 in San Mateo Superior Court. Defendant filed a notice of

removal and the case was filed in this court on January 25, 2007. 

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

An initial Rule 16 case management conference was set for May 4,

2007. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. On April 23, 2007,

Defendant filed a motion to enlarge time to continue the case

management conference by forty-five days and thereby to postpone

the parties' meet and confer requirements. Defendant filed a

declaration demonstrating that it had attempted to meet and confer

with Plaintiff's counsel of record and after repeated requests,

counsel indicated that Plaintiff had obtained new representation. 

However, no notice of substitution of counsel had been filed at

that time. On April 30, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to

withdraw. On May 1, the Court granted Defendant's motion to

enlarge time and rescheduled the case management conference to

coincide with the hearing on Plaintiff's counsel's motion to

withdraw. On May 17, Plaintiff's current counsel filed a notice of

substitution of counsel. On May 21, the Court ordered that

Plaintiff's counsel be substituted in and on May 22, the Court

granted Plaintiff's former counsel's motion to withdraw. The Court

also instructed Plaintiff's new counsel and counsel for Defendant

to appear at the case management conference scheduled for June 7,

2007. On June 6, 2007, the parties filed separate case management

statements, indicating their inability to meet and confer. 

Following the case management conference, the Court entered a

case management order, setting various dates, including an October

10, 2007 alternative dispute resolution deadline and a December 21,

2007 fact discovery cut-off. 

On August 17, 2007, Defendant's counsel sent a letter to

Plaintiff's counsel including Defendant's first set of requests for

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

production of documents and interrogatories, a notice to depose

Plaintiff on September 24 and 25, 2007, and proposing an initial

disclosure date of August 31, 2007. Turman Decl., Ex. A. 

Defendant offered to meet and confer regarding other possible dates

for Plaintiff's deposition. Id. Plaintiff's counsel never

responded to the letter. Turman Decl. ¶ 2. Defendant produced

initial disclosures on August 31 and supplemental disclosures on

September 24. Id. 

On September 12, 2007, Plaintiff's counsel filed a notice of

unavailability, stating, 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that F. Anthony Edwards, attorney

of record for Plaintiff will be out of town and

unavailable for the time period of September 12, 2007

through September 24, 2007. During said time period,

there is no one responsible for attending court

hearings, drafting pleadings, responses to motions,

responses to discovery requests, attending depositions,

or providing any legal service in the above-referenced

action. Please be advised that purposely scheduling a

conflicting proceeding without good cause is

sanctionable conduct. Tenderloin Housing Clinic v.

Sparks (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 229.

Docket No. 22. 

On September 21, 2007 Defendant's counsel again wrote to

Plaintiff's counsel, enclosing an amended notice to take

Plaintiff's deposition for October 8 and 9, 2007. Turman Decl.,

Ex. B. In addition, Defendant requested that Plaintiff provide his

initial disclosures by September 25, 2007 and respond to discovery

requests by September 28, 2007. Id. Defendant also enclosed a

stipulation requesting a forty-five day extension of the

alternative dispute resolution deadline, noting that it had not

received any disclosures or been able to depose Plaintiff. Id. 

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Defendant's counsel received a telephone message from

Plaintiff's counsel on September 27, stating that the case needed

"further development." Turman Decl., Ex. C. Defendant's counsel

was unable to reach Plaintiff's counsel by phone, so sent him an

email reminding him of the need to meet and confer, the outstanding

discovery requests, the re-noticed deposition and the proposed

stipulation to extend time for mediation. Id. Plaintiff's counsel

responded, "I returned from vacation on the 24th, and came to work

today. We will talk tomorrow." Id. Plaintiff's counsel did not

call on the September 28. Turman Decl. ¶ 7. 

On October 1, counsel met and conferred. Id. Following the

meet and confer Defendant's counsel sent a summary email confirming

the agreed-upon schedule. Turman Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff agreed

to provide his initial disclosures by October 3, 2007, to respond

to outstanding discovery requests by October 10 and to attend a

deposition on November 1 and 2. Id. Plaintiff's counsel signed

the stipulation seeking an extension of the alternative dispute

resolution deadline and the stipulation was filed that day. 

Plaintiff never served his initial disclosures or discovery

responses. On October 30, Defendant re-noticed Plaintiff's

deposition to December 5 and 6 and requested the discovery and

initial disclosures by November 2. Turman Decl., Ex. E. Plaintiff

did not appear for his deposition and still has not served his

initial disclosures or discovery responses. Turman Decl. ¶ 9. 

On December 19, 2007, Defendant filed this motion, seeking

terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) for failure to prosecute or in the alternative pursuant to

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Defendant requests that the Court strike this declaration

because it is captioned as a declaration by Plaintiff, signed by

Plaintiff and appears to contain information about Plaintiff but

begins "I, F. Anthony Edwards Declare." Edwards is Plaintiff's

counsel. As discussed below, Plaintiff's declaration does not

provide enough to rebut the grounds for sanctions established in

Defendant's motion. Therefore, Defendant's request is denied as

moot. 

5

Rule 37(b) for failure to participate in discovery. Plaintiff

opposes the motion and submits a declaration stating that his

mother died on September 10, 2007 in Guyana, he was in Guyana from

September 12 through 17 and, because of his loss and mourning, he

has been unable to assist his attorney in responding to pending

discovery.1

 Williams Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) provides,

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply

with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may

move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against

the defendant. Unless the court in its order for

dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this

subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication upon the

merits.

Similarly, Rule 37(b)(2) provides 

If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or

permit discovery . . . the court in which the action is

pending may make such orders in regard to the failure

as are just, and among others the following: . . . An

order . . . dismissing the action or proceeding or any

part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default

against the disobedient party.

The Ninth Circuit has held that, in deciding whether to dismiss a

claim for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with an

order, the Court must consider five factors:

(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.

Rio Props. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir.

2002) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381,

1385 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet. 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

I. Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation and Court's

Interest in Docket Control

Here, the first two factors, the public interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's interest in

docket control, clearly weigh in favor of dismissal. The Ninth

Circuit has stated that "the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation always favors dismissal." Yourish v.

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (1999). Further, with

respect to the failure to comply with the Court's case management

order, the Ninth Circuit has held, "Where a court order is

violated, the first two factors support sanctions and the fourth

factor cuts against a default. Therefore, it is the third and

fifth factors that are decisive." Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Thoeren,

913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990). 

II. Risk of Prejudice to Defendant

"To prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that

plaintiff's actions impaired defendant's ability to proceed to

trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the

case." Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Malone v. United States

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)). Although the

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

pendancy of a lawsuit is not, in and of itself, sufficiently

prejudicial to warrant dismissal, id., "[u]nreasonable delay

creates a presumption of injury." Alexander v. Pacific Maritime

Asso., 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970). Absent any participation

by Plaintiff in the discovery process, Defendant has had no way to

prepare a defense. Further, the parties have not been able to

pursue mediation as ordered by the Court. 

The Ninth Circuit has held, "Whether prejudice is sufficient

to support an order of dismissal is in part judged with reference

to the strength of the plaintiff's excuse for the default." 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Plaintiff argues that he has been unable

to assist counsel in responding to discovery because of his

mother's death on September 10, 2007 and his need to travel to

Guyana from September 12 through 17. However, Plaintiff's counsel

never informed Defendant's counsel of this delay or requested any

extensions based on Plaintiff's loss. Further, Plaintiff's loss

does not explain the lack of diligence in making initial

disclosures and responding to Defendant's discovery requests prior

to, or after, September, 2007. As discussed above, even without

knowledge of Plaintiff's loss, Defendant's counsel has made

significant efforts to accommodate Plaintiff and his counsel to no

avail. More than one year after Plaintiff filed this case, he has

not even served his initial disclosures. The Court finds that this

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

III. Availability of Less Drastic Sanction

Regarding this factor, the Ninth Circuit employs a three-part

analysis to determine whether a district court properly considered

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

the adequacy of less drastic sanctions:

(1) did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility of

less drastic sanctions and explain why alternative

sanctions would be inappropriate, (2) did the court

implement alternative sanctions before ordering

dismissal, and (3) did the court warn the party of the

possibility of dismissal before actually ordering

dismissal?

Adriana, 913 F.2d at 1412-3. 

The Court has not before discussed the feasibility of less

drastic sanctions; nor has it imposed sanctions previously. 

Further, the Court finds that alternative sanctions exist and

dismissal would be an inappropriate sanction at this juncture. 

Therefore, the Court orders:

(1) Within one week of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall

serve his initial disclosures.

(2) Within two weeks of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall

appear for a deposition at Defendant's convenience.

(3) Within one week of the date of this order, the parties shall

schedule a mediation session with a private mediator to occur

within three weeks of the date of Plaintiff's deposition. The

parties shall participate in that session. 

(4) Plaintiff shall pay Defendant's costs incurred thus far in

attempting to comply with the Court's pretrial order and in making

this motion. Within one week of the date of this order Defendant

shall file a declaration and supporting documents establishing such

costs. Plaintiff shall pay the amount claimed or file an objection

within two weeks of the date of this order. If Plaintiff objects,

Defendant may file a response. Any dispute over the amount of fees

claimed by Defendant will be decided on the papers.

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

If Plaintiff does not comply with these orders, Defendant may

renew its motion for terminating sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/14/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00540-CW Document 32 Filed 01/14/08 Page 9 of 9