Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02709/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02709-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor Act

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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 1

 The Court declines to adopt the proposed order submitted by American because it is difficult

to understand and because it imposes obligations on Mr. Lee that are not appropriate.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-2709 SC (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR TERMINATING

SANCTIONS OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, EVIDENTIARY

SANCTIONS AND ISSUE SANCTIONS

AND AN ORDER COMPELLING

DEPOSITION APPEARANCE

(Docket No. 43)

Defendant American Airlines filed a motion asking for terminating sanctions or, in the

alternative, for issue and evidentiary sanctions and an order compelling Plaintiff Amos Lee to appear

for deposition. American also asked for attorney’s fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b). Mr. Lee failed to file an opposition to the motion. 

On July 24, 2006, the Court held a hearing on American’s motion. When Mr. Lee’s counsel

failed to appear for the hearing, the Court contacted him by telephone. Counsel asked for permission

to appear by telephone and the Court granted the request. Having considered American’s briefs and

accompanying submissions as well as the oral argument of both counsel, and good cause appearing

therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part American’s motion.1

///

Case 3:05-cv-02709-SC Document 54 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

I. DISCUSSION

A. Terminating Sanctions

The Court denies American’s request for terminating sanctions. This is the most severe

sanction that a party can seek and requires the Court to consider various factors, namely, (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. See Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d

1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court must also take into account whether the violation of the

discovery order was due to the willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. See id. at 1167. 

“Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate

willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Id.

The Court concludes that terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this point, especially

when less drastic sanctions are available and when American will not suffer any prejudice as the

Court is ordering Mr. Lee to provide the discovery at issue in a short timeframe.

B. Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions and Order Compelling Deposition

The Court likewise denies American’s request for issue and evidentiary sanctions because

they are so severe as to be tantamount to terminating sanctions. For the reasons stated above, there

are alternative remedies as provided herein.

The Court orders that Mr. Lee appear for a deposition, as requested by American. The

deposition shall take place on July 31, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., at defense counsel’s San Francisco office.

The Court further orders Mr. Lee to produce all documents responsive to Requests Nos. 2, 5,

6, 8, 9-10, 16-20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 34, 44, and 48. Mr. Lee has no obligation to identify by Bates

number which documents pertain to which requests so long as he produces the documents “as they

are kept in the usual course of business.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Otherwise he must identify which

documents respond to which requests. 

In addition, Mr. Lee is ordered to provide a declaration stating that all responsive documents

that are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such materials might plausibly exist

Case 3:05-cv-02709-SC Document 54 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

have been produced as to each of these document requests. If no responsive documents to a

particular request exist, then Mr. Lee should state such in his declaration.

Finally, Mr. Lee is ordered to supplement his responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6.

Mr. Lee shall provide the above discovery and declaration to American by no later than 12:00

p.m. on July 28, 2006.

C. Attorney’s Fees

 In its motion, American sought not only terminating or preclusion sanctions but also

attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 37(b). Under Rule 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.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). For example, a court may issue an order precluding the party from introducing

evidence on specific matters. See id. In lieu of or in addition to such orders, “the court shall require

the party failing to obey the order 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.” Id.

According to American, Rule 37(b)(2) is implicated because Mr. Lee failed to comply with

this Court’s order of March 23, 2006. See Docket No. 32. In that order, the Court instructed Mr.

Lee to provide complete responses to American’s first set of document requests, produce all

documents responsive to American’s first set of document requests, and provide complete responses

to American’s first set of interrogatories. The Court also ordered Mr. Lee to pay American $3,000 in

attorney’s fees. Mr. Lee was given thirty days from the date of the order to comply. American

claims that Mr. Lee has failed to comply with the terms of the order, although it acknowledges that it

did receive some documents from Mr. Lee in April 2006 -- some of which had been previously

produced and others which “were unorganized and not categorized so as to indicate which Document

Request they were responsive to.” Mot. at 5.

At the hearing, Mr. Lee’s counsel did not argue that his client had satisfied the terms of the

Court’s order of March 23, 2006. Moreover, counsel did not make any argument that the failure to

comply was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust

other than pointing to the fact that he was hopeful the case could be successfully mediated. The

Case 3:05-cv-02709-SC Document 54 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

prospect of mediation does not relieve the party of complying in a timely fashion with discovery

obligations, especially when ordered by the Court. The Court therefore finds that American is

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 37(b). However, the Court notes that, with

respect to the documents that Mr. Lee did produce in April 2006, Mr. Lee had no obligation to

“organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request,” so long as he produced

the documents as “kept in the usual course of business.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Simply because the

documents may have been unorganized does not mean that they were not kept that way in the usual

course of business.

As for what is a reasonable fee, American claims that it should be awarded $2,450, a sum

which reflects that its counsel spent 8 hours meeting and conferring and preparing the motion and

0.5 hours deposing Mr. Lee “with respect to documents not yet produced.” Cole Decl. ¶ 27. At the

hearing, counsel for American asserted that this was especially reasonable given that American was

not asking to be compensated for the time its attorney spent traveling to, appearing for, and arguing

at the hearing.

The Court finds that the fee sought by American should be adjusted. First, American should

not be compensated for the 0.5 hours that its attorney spent deposing Mr. Lee because the deposition

took place prior to the Court’s discovery order with which Mr. Lee failed to comply. See Cole Decl.

¶ 11 (stating that deposition took place on February 9, 2006). Second, given the straightforward

nature of this discovery dispute, spending 8 hours to meet and confer and prepare a motion is

excessive. Finally, although the Court acknowledges that American is not asking to be compensated

for all of its attorney’s time, the time spent appearing for and arguing at the hearing was negligible. 

Moreover, the time spent by its attorney traveling from Los Angeles would not be compensable since

there is counsel of record located in San Francisco (from the same firm) who could have appeared

for and argued at the hearing. The Court concludes that a reasonable fee is $1,500, i.e., 6 hours of

Mr. Cole’s time. Mr. Lee is ordered to pay this amount within thirty days of the filing of this order.

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-02709-SC Document 54 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

5

D. Warning re Future Sanctions

As a final point, the Court warns Mr. Lee that, although it is not recommending terminating

or preclusion sanctions at this juncture, should Mr. Lee fail to comply with this order, then the Court

shall recommend to the presiding judge that sanctions of this type be issued.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006

_______________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02709-SC Document 54 Filed 07/26/06 Page 5 of 5