Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00591/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00591-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY DeSHAZIER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

HANFORD POLICE OFFICER DALE )

WILLIAMS, BADGE No. 121; )

HANFORD POLICE OFFICER MITCH )

SMITH, BADGE No. 39; POLICE )

SERGEANT RUSSELL HILYAND; and )

CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA, )

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________ )

CV F 06-0591 AWI SMS 

ORDER MODIFYING IN PART

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE,

DENYING TERMINATING

SANCTIONS, AND

AWARDING MONETARY

SANCTIONS

In this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C., section 1983, defendants Hanford

Police Officer Dale Williams, et al. (“Defendants”) have moved for monetary and terminating

sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter was

referred to the Magistrate Judge for findings of fact and recommendations of law (“F&R’s”). 

On October 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued F&R’s recommending an award of

monetary sanctions to Defendants pursuant to Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 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 All references to Rules hereinafter are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1

2

Procedure, and recommending dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). 1

The Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s set forth the legal standards for applying terminating

and monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37. Those standards are incorporated here by

reference and need not be repeated. The factual background pertinent to Defendants’ motion

for terminating sanctions concerns mainly Defendants’ unsuccessful efforts to schedule a

deposition with Plaintiff and with a non-party witness, Verniece DeShazier. Defendants

allege Plaintiff’s attorney, Kevin Little (“Little”) was timely notified of the time and date for

the depositions that was set for June 26, 2007. Little canceled the depositions at 3:37 p.m.

the day prior to the scheduled date claiming a scheduling conflict. Similarly, Defendants

allege Little cancelled the next scheduled depositions, which had been set with Little’s

consent on July 12, 2007. Defendants allege Little canceled these depositions at about 3:00

p.m. on the day prior, again citing a scheduling conflict.

Thereafter, Defendants allege, Little failed to respond to a number of letters and emails that attempted to schedule a mutually satisfactory time for depositions. Plaintiffs set 

depositions for August 15, 2007, in Hanford so that Verneice’s travel restriction could be

accommodated. Neither Little or the scheduled deponents appeared for the depositions. 

Plaintiff’s allege they received no communication from Little, despite several attempts to

communicate by Defendants’ attorney until Little filed Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s F&R’s concerning the instant motion for terminating sanctions. Defendants also

allege Little allowed the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses, which had been set for

July 6, 2007, to pass without providing any disclosures.

The F&R’s note Defendants claim they are prejudiced by the fact they were unable to

depose Plaintiff and so are “unable to clarify and evaluate the merits of the claims against

them, discover any additional witnesses who need to be deposed or other evidence to be

investigated, or prepare their defense.” Doc. # 40 at 8:7-12. The F&R’s also note that there

does not appear to be any permanent loss of evidence or other irreversible harm “with respect

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

to Defendants’ ability to mount a defense. . . .” Doc. # 40 at 9:12-15. Nonetheless the

Magistrate Judge went on to observe:

Thus, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is real. Further, it does not appear

that Defendants have the means to avoid or to limit any potential prejudice

because there is no apparent, realistic probability of managing the case to

cause it to proceed to a position of readiness for adjudication.

Doc. # 40 at 9:21-26.

Little failed to respond timely to Defendants’ motion for terminating and monetary

sanctions, but did file an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s within the 30-day time

limit. Little contends the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s fail to give consideration to Little’s

medical condition and to physician-imposed restrictions on his practice. He also contends the

court’s approach in this case is at variance with the approach taken in another case, Romar v.

Fresno Community Hospital, 03cv6668 AWI SMS. Little contends there was no intentional

misconduct on his part and that terminating sanctions are not warranted where, as here, there

is no bad faith.

Dismissal of an action is the most severe penalty, and is authorized only in ‘extreme

circumstances.” Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th cir.

1985). Little is correct in his contention that the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default

judgment may only be imposed if there is wilfulness, fault or bad faith. See Sigliano v.

Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 310 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or

default are imposed, however, the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party’s noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith”). 

Because Little did not file a timely opposition to Defendants’ motion for terminating

sanctions, the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s do not reflect any consideration of Little’s

contention that there is no fault, wilfulness or bad faith because Little is involuntarily unable

to pursue a full workload because of a medical condition. The court is generally aware of the

existence of a medical condition limiting Little’s capacity to work, although the specifics of

his work limitations are not known to the court. In light of Little’s contentions in opposition

to the Magistrate Judge’s F&R’s together with the court’s existing limited knowledge of

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Little’s medical problems, the court finds that Little’s non-responsiveness and nonavailability, which were the basis of the Magistrate Judge’s finding of wilful disobedience,

are not sufficient to support a finding of bad faith, fault or wilfulness sufficient to support an

order of dismissal at this time.

Although the facts as currently understood by the court do not support dismissal,

Little’s opposition fails to address the court’s primary concern in that the opposition fails to

set forth any plan or proposal that would insure that Defendants would not be further

inconvenienced or prejudiced by limitations on Little’s ability to practice. Little refers to this

court’s handling of proceedings in Romar v. Fresno Community Hospital, as being

illustrative of the court’s approach to accommodating Little’s work limitations. However the

postponement of proceedings in Romar represents a special case because the delays the court

allowed in Romar fortuitously worked to the benefit and convenience of all parties and

resulted in no prejudice to any party. Such is not the case here. 

While the F&R’s noted there has been no apparent loss of evidence or permanent

impairment of Defendants’ ability to present a defense to this point, the fact remains that

Defendants are entitled to the timely resolution of the case against them and they

consequently have a right to timely cooperation in discovery and other pretrial proceedings. 

The delays that have resulted to this point from Little’s lack of responsiveness and nonavailability mark the outer limits of what the court can permit without the imposition of

terminating sanctions. Although the court will allow this action to proceed, Little is

cautioned that any further delays or postponements by Plaintiff that are not by stipulation of

the parties or that are not noticed to the court and opposing party at least seven (7) days in

advance of the delay or postponement will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

The court will also require that the parties meet and confer to determine a mutually

agreeable schedule for any remaining discovery and/or pretrial proceedings remaining in this

case. The parties stipulated schedule is to be filed with the court and will constitute this

court’s order for further discovery. In the event the parties are unable to stipulate to a

schedule for remaining discovery and pretrial proceedings, either party may notify the

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 4 of 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

5

Magistrate Judge, who will thereafter schedule a hearing to resolve the matter. If Little feels

his medical condition is such that compliance with this order is not possible, he may so notify

the court and the court will provide an opportunity for Little to obtain co-counsel or transfer

the case to another attorney.

Little also objects to the award of attorney fees by the Magistrate Judge. Rule 37(d)

provides that a court may apply any of the sanction enumerated in Rule 37(b) where the party

has failed to present itself for deposition after proper notice of the deposition. Rule 37(d)

also provides that in lieu of any order or in addition to any order of sanction pursuant to Rule

27(b), “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 the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make the

award of expenses unjust.” Rule 37(d)(Italics added).

Because Plaintiff did not attend his properly noticed deposition, and because there is

no justification for non-attendance, the court is obliged to order that Little compensate

Defendants’ attorney for the expenses incurred. The court has reviewed the Magistrate

Judges findings and recommendations with respect to monetary sanctions and finds the

recommended award is well supported by the facts and is legally justified by the terms of

Rule 37(d).

THEREFORE, pursuant to the foregoing discussion, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants shall meet and confer to determine a schedule

for further discovery and such other proceedings that the parties deem necessary or

advantageous to schedule by stipulation, including provision of an expert witness list.

2. The schedule for further discovery that is agreed to by the parties shall be filed with

the court not later than Friday, January 18, 2008. In the event no agreement is

reached by the parties, either or both parties may notify the Magistrate Judge of nonagreement not later than Friday, January 18, 2008.

3. In the event Plaintiff’s attorney, Kevin Little, determines that he is unable to comply

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 5 of 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

6

with the court’s order to meet and confer and to determine an agreed upon discovery

schedule, or that he is not capable by reason of limitations imposed on his ability to

practice by his medical condition to comply with any portion of the discovery

schedule the parties agree upon, he shall notify this court not later than Friday,

January 18, 2008.

4. Kevin Little shall pay to Defendants’ attorney the sum of $3,437.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00591-AWI -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/26/07 Page 6 of 6