Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVETTE SANDERS, individually )

and as guardian ad litem for )

the estate of Michael L. )

Sanders, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00469-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART THE MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF

FRESNO AND COUNTY OF FRESNO

(DOCS. 74, 76)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS AND

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO PAY

SANCTIONS TO COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER

15, 2007 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant City of

Fresno for sanctions, in which Defendant County of Fresno joins.

The motion came on regularly for hearing on December 15, 2006, at

9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder,

United States Magistrate Judge. Waukeen McCoy and Janie Davenport

appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff; Bruce B. Johnson

appeared on behalf of Defendant County; Bruce D. Praet appeared

telephonically on behalf of Defendants City and Dyer; and Chris

Patton appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant Taser. The

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 08/16/07 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

Court had received and considered all the pleadings, including

the motion with attached exhibits that was filed on November 3,

2006, the joinder and supporting declaration filed on November 6,

2006, and the opposition with an attached declaration filed on

November 29, 2006. The matter was argued and submitted to the

Court for decision.

I. Legal Standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) authorizes depositions, including

those of parties, "without leave of court." 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...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) also authorizes monetary

sanctions: 

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 failure was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) continues:

The failure to act described in this subdivision

may not be excused on the ground that the discovery

sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act

has a pending motion for a protective order

as provided by Rule 26(c)."

A party who fails to appear for a deposition is subject to

sanctions even in the absence of a prior order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(d); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764-765 (9th Cir.

1996) (unexplained failure to appear at deposition in contempt

proceeding justified sanction deeming allegations to be

established); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 947

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 08/16/07 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

3

(9th Cir. 1993).

II. Analysis

Here, the papers submitted by the moving parties establish

that when on October 2, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel faxed a letter

to the City Defendants’ counsel in which Plaintiff’s counsel

reversed its earlier position of readiness to attend a deposition

of Plaintiff scheduled for October 5, 2006, the City’s attorney

incurred a nonrefundable $100.00 cancellation fee for an airline

ticket from Orange County to Fresno, the location of the

deposition. No explanation or cause for the unavailability of

Plaintiff or her counsel at this scheduled deposition has been

demonstrated by Plaintiff’s counsel.

The papers further establish that after agreeing to

reschedule the deposition for November 3, 2006, Plaintiff’s

counsel on 2:00 p.m. on November 2, 2006, called counsel for

Defendant City and stated that the Court had ordered that no

depositions go forward; Plaintiff would thus not be available for

the deposition on November 3, and further, Plaintiff’s counsel

declared himself unavailable for a quick conference call to the

Court that had been suggested by counsel for the City. 

The Court speculates that Plaintiff’s counsel’s position

regarding the Court having ordered no depositions resulted from a

statement made in connection with a motion to amend that was

heard on October 27, 2006. However, the Court has reviewed the

pertinent portion of the transcript of the hearing of October 27

and notes that the Court stated that the scheduling conference

would be off-calendar until the Court ruled on the motion to

amend; the Court specifically stated that that did not preclude

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 08/16/07 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

4

the parties from beginning to engage in discovery if that was

their pleasure. Thus, it is not correct that the Court made an

order that precluded the deposition. Further, no cause has been

shown for Plaintiff’s counsel’s waiting until the day before the

deposition to inform opposing counsel that neither he nor his

client would be appearing. Indeed, earlier notice and

communication, accompanied by timely resort to the option of an

informal telephonic discovery conference, could have cleared up

any misunderstanding and would have obviated this portion of the

motion in its entirety. Thus, the Court finds that the pendency

of a motion to amend the pleadings did not under the

circumstances constitute cause or justification for a lastminute, unilateral refusal to attend a scheduled deposition. 

The moving parties have established that as a direct result

of the cancellation of the depositions, Bruce Praet, counsel for

the City of Fresno, reasonably incurred $1488.08 in costs,

consisting of 6 hours of attorney’s fees at $185.00 per hour (in

October 2006, 0.5 hour in communications regarding rescheduling

the deposition; in November 2006, 1.5 hours of communications

with counsel and the Court concerning the second cancellation,

2.0 hours in preparing the motion for sanctions, and 2.0 hours in

preparing the reply, totaling reasonable attorney’s fees of

$1,110.00), and $378.08 for two airline cancellation fees and a

hotel cancellation fee.

Further, it has been established that as a direct result of

Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct, Bruce B. Johnson, Jr., senior

deputy of the office of the Fresno County Counsel, incurred costs

in the amount of $475.20, reflecting 4.8 hours of reasonably

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 08/16/07 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

expended attorney time (communication, preparation, travel and

attendance to record nonappearance, and preparation of notice of

joinder and supporting declaration) at $99.00 per hour. 

The Court is informed and understands that the deposition of

Plaintiff has occurred. Thus, the moving parties’ alternate

request, namely, that the action be ordered dismissed in the

event of Plaintiff’s failure to attend any deposition ordered in

the future, is now moot and will not be considered by the Court.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that 

1. The motion of Defendants City of Fresno, Jerry Dyer, and

County of Fresno for sanctions IS GRANTED in part and denied in

part; and

2. Plaintiffs and their counsel ARE DIRECTED to pay to Bruce

D. Praet, of Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, $1488.08 no later than

November 15, 2007; and

3. Plaintiff and her counsel ARE DIRECTED to pay to Bruce B.

Johnson, Jr. of the office of the County Counsel of Fresno,

$475.20 no later than November 15, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 08/16/07 Page 5 of 5