Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01141/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01141-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL LOWRY;

Plaintiff,

v.

HERITAGE SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

AND RELATED CASES.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Nos. 09-CV-0882-BTM (WVG)

 09-CV-0898-BTM (WVG)

 09-CV-1141-BTM (WVG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANTS METROPOLITAN

TRANSIT SYSTEM, TORRENCE

JOSEPH, AND EDWIN AMBRIZ’S

MOTION FOR TERMINATING

SANCTIONS

Defendants Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”), Torrence Joseph (“Joseph”), and Edwin

Ambriz (“Ambriz”), (collectively “Defendants”), move the Court to impose terminating sanctions

against Plaintiff Daryl Lowry (“Plaintiff’) for his obstructive conduct and discovery abuses in the

three cases that he filed against Defendants and previously terminated Defendants Heritage Security

Services (“Heritage”) and Jerrod Gressett (“Gressett’) in 2009. (882 Case: Doc. No. 144; 889 Case:

Doc. No. 110; 1141 Case: Doc. No. 120.)1/ Defendants’ Motion is based on the extensive history of

this litigation, Plaintiff’s refusal to participate in discovery despite several Court Orders, and

Plaintiff’s failure to appear for a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”). After considering all

of the above, and conducting a hearing on Defendants’ Motion, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that

//

1/ All further references to documents on the Court’s docket are to documents in the 09-CV-0882-BTM (WVG) matter.

1 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 30
 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

Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions be GRANTED and that all three cases against the

moving Defendants be DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Background

Filed in April and May of 2009, Plaintiff’s cases follow separate run-ins with security

personnel aboard and around the San Diego Trolley. According to Plaintiff, Defendants violated his

civil and constitutional rights when they unjustly detained, arrested, or searched him without cause. 

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants used unreasonable force to secure his detentions and arrests. 

Plaintiff claims that he suffered serious injuries as a result of Defendants’ actions, including broken

bones in his face, which required medical care.

Defendants claim that security personnel encountered Plaintiff aboard or around the San

Diego Trolley after he drew their attention by either exhibiting signs of being under the influence of

alcoholic beverages, refusing to produce proof that he had paid his trolley fare, or by creating

disturbances aboard the trolley or on trolley property. They claim that Plaintiff was consistently

belligerent, refused to cooperate, escalated his disruptive behavior, resisted arrest, and actively

attacked security officers after being contacted.

On December 11, 2009, all three cases were transferred to the undersigned’s caseload. 

(Doc. No. 34.) On May 20, 2011, Defendants Heritage and Gressett filed a Motion for Terminating

Sanctions (“first sanctions motion”), citing Plaintiff’s obstructive conduct and discovery abuses as

justification for dismissal of the cases against them. (See Doc. No. 88.) On July 7, 2011, this Court

issued a Report and Recommendation to the Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District

Judge, recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted. (Doc. No. 103.) On July 11, 2011, this

Court issued a stay on discovery in all three cases, pending the resolution of the first sanctions motion. 

(Doc. No. 102.) On April 26, 2012, Judge Moskowitz adopted in full this Court’s Report and

Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s cases were dismissed as to Defendants Heritage and Gressett only. 

(Doc. No. 120.) The remaining Defendants did not join in the first sanctions motion. 

On July 27, 2012, this Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order which lifted the stay

on discovery in all three cases for a period of sixty days. (Doc. No. 131.) The Court ordered that

2 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 2 of 30
 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

Defendants shall have the opportunity to take Plaintiff’s deposition and conduct any follow-up factual

discovery related to the deposition on or before September 21, 2012. Id. at 1. Although fact

discovery had closed on June 10, 2011, the Order made clear that fact discovery was being opened

for this limited purpose, as Defendants had not yet been able to secure Plaintiff’s deposition

testimony. (Doc. No. 69 at 2; Doc. No. 131 at 1.)

On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order, asking the Court to issue

an Order excusing him from being deposed. (Doc. No. 135.) On August 23, 2012, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, stating,

Plaintiff’s instant Motion fails to provide any good cause for a Court Order excusing

him from being deposed. This action was filed over three years ago, and Plaintiff’s

deposition is necessary in order for the case to proceed. Plaintiff, having filed the

lawsuit, may not continue to stall these proceedings by filing a Motion for a Protective

Order that is devoid of any reason as to why he should be excused from being

deposed. With the fact discovery deadline rapidly approaching, Plaintiff must sit for

his deposition and begin cooperating with opposing counsel in order to avoid possible

additional sanctions.

(Doc. No. 137 at 2.) (emphasis added)

When the Court lifted the stay on discovery, it also set an MSC to be held on August 27,

2012. (Doc. No. 131.) Although Plaintiff submitted an MSC statement on August 20, 2012, in

compliance with the Court’s Order, he failed to appear for the MSC. (Doc. No. 131 at 3.) 

On August 27, 2012, as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the MSC or make himself

available by telephone, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and set a hearing in the

undersigned’s courtroom for October 2, 2012. (Doc. No. 140.) Plaintiff failed to appear for the OSC

hearing.

Defendants incorporate the tortured history of this litigation into the instant Motion for

Terminating Sanctions, and also address specific grievances that have occurred since Judge

Moskowitz granted the first sanctions motion on April 26, 2012. (See Doc. Nos. 120, 144.) The

Court will take this opportunity to revisit the extensive chronology of this litigation, and will then

address Defendants’ specific grievances.2/

 

2/ The Court will incorporate the discussion set forth in its July 7, 2011, Report and Recommendation to Judge Moskowitz

on Defendants Heritage and Gressett’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions. (Doc. No. 103.)

3 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 30
 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

B. Procedural Background

1. March 2, 2010: Plaintiff’s First Documented Phone Call to the Court 

On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff called the undersigned’s chambers and asked the clerk about

a default judgment. During the conversation, Plaintiff indicated that he would have Defendant

Gressett arrested for forgery if he appeared at the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) Conference. The

clerk advised Plaintiff that the issue would be resolved at the ENE Conference, and that no preemptive

measures could be taken. 

2. October 18, 2010: Early Neutral Evaluation Conference

On October 18, 2010, the undersigned convened an ENE Conference. Fearing for their

safety, counsel for Defendants requested that the Court have security present during the ENE. 

Plaintiff had apparently left several aggressive voicemail messages for counsel, and they felt so

threatened that they sought a restraining order against Plaintiff. The Court took the extraordinary

measure of having two United States Marshals Deputies present for the duration of the ENE. In

person, the undersigned observed that Plaintiff was at times visibly agitated and belligerent, expressed

that he was “pissed,” and proclaimed: “I ain’t afraid of no one. I won’t let anyone touch me,”

referring to his confrontation with trolley security. Additionally, Plaintiff directed his aggression

towards Defense counsel personally, calling them liars. It was clear to the undersigned that Plaintiff

held an intense emotional stake in his cases, had difficulty controlling his emotions, and intensely

disliked Defendants and their counsel. Before concluding the ENE, the undersigned advised Plaintiff

to conduct himself civilly and explained that the Court would grant him some leeway, but would not

ignore the rules simply because he was proceeding pro se. Plaintiff confirmed that he understood and

said that he saw no problems with following the rules.

3. December 10, 2010: Case Management Conference

On December 10, 2010, the undersigned convened a telephonic Case Management

Conference (“CMC”) and quickly realized that Plaintiff could not control himself over the telephone. 

Plaintiff often went on emotion-fueled rants about his injuries and what he perceived to be delay

tactics by Defense counsel. He routinely interrupted the undersigned, alleged that Defendants were

trying to take advantage of him, and asserted that he would not back down. 

4 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 4 of 30
 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. January 6, 2011: Status Hearing

On January 6, 2011, the undersigned held a Status Hearing to allow Plaintiff the

opportunity to air his grievances, as he had called the undersigned’s chambers three times after the

CMC and expressed dissatisfaction with the judicial process and Defendants.

On December 28, 2010, Plaintiff called chambers, spoke with the undersigned’s law clerk,

and stated that he was going to “cheat” despite the undersigned telling him he could not do so. 

Plaintiff also proclaimed that he was going to appeal Judge Moskowitz’s dismissal of his state

forgery claim, and announced: “To hell with what the judge says. I’m coming after them

[Defendants].”

On Thursday, December 30, 2010, at 7:15 p.m., Plaintiff left a message on chambers

voicemail, stated that he may have to leave the state for family reasons, and said that he wanted to

meet with the Court on Monday, January 3, 2011, to discuss his cases. Plaintiff expressed impatience

at the pace of the litigation and stated: “We have to do something. I’m not going out like a sucker.

. . When I do come back, I’m gonna hit ‘em double.” The next day was an observed court holiday

and, as a result, the chambers staff did not return Plaintiff’s phone call.

On Sunday, January 2, 2011, Plaintiff left a markedly more agitated message on chambers

voicemail and expressed his strong displeasure that his first message was not returned. He stated:

“I’m not appreciating everything that’s going down and what’s going down.” He demanded to speak

directly to the undersigned and proclaimed: “I’m standing up for my rights. I’m a veteran and I’m

pissed. I’m very, very, very upset. I don’t like the tactics they’re trying to pull. I don’t like what the

federal courts are trying to pull. And like I said, I will go to the media.”3/ The overall tone of this

message was threatening, not only towards Defendants but also towards the Court itself.

In response to Plaintiff’s hostile messages, the Court convened a Status Hearing on January

6, 2011, at 8:00 a.m., despite the fact that the undersigned had the “criminal duty” responsibilities

during that week and civil matters are generally not heard as a result. The Court held the hearing on

3/ On October 11, 2012, during a hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Plaintiff told the Court that

his brother-in-law works for CNN, and Plaintiff was going to tell him about the hearing. On October 16, 2012, in an ex

parte communication that Plaintiff attempted to file with the Court, he reiterated that he was going to talk to his brother-inlaw, a CNN employee, about the sanctions hearing in the undersigned’s courtroom.

5 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 5 of 30
 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

the record, ordered Plaintiff’s personal appearance to avoid another disruptive telephone conference,

and allowed counsel for Defendants to appear telephonically. The Court again took the extraordinary

measure of having United States Marshals Deputies present in the courtroom during a civil

proceeding.

The undersigned further admonished Plaintiff about the aggressive and threatening nature

of his communications with the Court, advised him that such behavior was not acceptable, and

generally cautioned him that sanctions may be forthcoming for continued unacceptable behavior. The

undersigned also advised Plaintiff against engaging in further substantive ex parte communications

with the Court.

5. March 25, 2011: Discovery Hearing

On March 25, 2011, the undersigned convened a Discovery Hearing after Plaintiff

apparently refused to answer several special interrogatories. The Court also learned that Plaintiff

continued to engage in unacceptably aggressive and threatening behavior towards Defense counsel. 

Specifically, Plaintiff continued to leave threatening voicemail messages for counsel, including the

excerpts below from a March 16, 2011, message:

• Hey Sam Sherman. How dumb do you think I am? Man you’re stupid, do you

know what? Okay, now I want to see all the citations I signed. There was

only one.4/ 

• So you know what, here’s the deal, I’m gonna fuck you just for that man. 

You’re through, okay? Your season is over with man, I’m telling you. This

is fun. I love this shit. Oh man, this is great. You’re an idiot man, but it’s

gonna be fun.5/

 I’m gonna fuck you for this. I’m going to the library right now

and type this shit up...6/

• Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, okay. Later.

4/ During the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff once again demanded to know, “Where’s the citations at?”

5/ During the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff proclaimed, “I want to go to trial to tell you the truth. It

would be fun.” A few minutes later, he announced, “I want to go to trial, I want to dance,” and also stated, “We gonna

have some fun.”

6/ On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff stopped his deposition and refused to continue the proceedings, telling Defense counsel,

“I’m going over here to see the judge, and I’m going to type this shit up, man.” (Doc. No. 144 at 8.) During the October

11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff told the Court that he was going to the library that day to “type some stuff up.” 

6 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 6 of 30
 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

(Doc. No. 75 at 4.)7/ 

During the Discovery Hearing, the Court read the entire transcribed message to Plaintiff,

who confirmed its accuracy: “Yeah. I was pissed.8/ I was upset, very upset, because of what they’re

trying to do -- motion to bring people into my life and invade my private life. I don’t like that. That’s

what they’re trying to do. They want to find out my address, where I live at - .” (Doc. No 83 at 9.)

After recounting Plaintiff’s continued behavior, the Court verbally admonished him that

continued obstreperous or obstructive conduct could result in sanctions, including a recommendation

that his cases be terminated. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to respond to certain special

interrogatories with guidance on how he could answer them.

After the hearing, the undersigned issued a written order that reiterated the verbal orders

above and again gave a detailed admonishment to Plaintiff that sanctions could issue. (Doc. No. 75.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff was admonished in no uncertain terms that case-dispositive sanctions could be

recommended and imposed if he continued his unacceptable behavior, failed to prosecute, or further

delayed his three cases. Id. at 4-6.

6. June 24, 2011: Hearing on Defendants Heritage and Gressett’s Motion for 

Terminating Sanctions

On June 24, 2011, the undersigned conducted a hearing on the Motion for Terminating

Sanctions filed by Defendants Heritage and Gressett. At the sanctions hearing, the Court questioned

Plaintiff about statements that he had made to Defendants during their first attempt to take his

deposition. (Doc. No. 103 at 14.) Defendants had properly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for April

28, 2011, and secured a videographer and court reporter to be in attendance. However, the deposition

ended when Plaintiff announced that he was represented by an attorney named Alan Spears, and that

Mr. Spears had instructed him not to answer any deposition questions. (Doc. No. 103 at 11.) Mr.

Spears testified at the sanctions hearing and emphatically denied that he had ever represented Plaintiff. 

7/ All page number references to documents on the Court’s docket refer to the CM/ECF pagination, not the document’s

native pagination.

8/ In an ex parte phone call to chambers on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff told the undersigned’s clerk that he was “pissed”

after the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, and as a result he attempted to file an ex parte letter with the Court.

7 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 7 of 30
 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

Id. He further denied that he had instructed Plaintiff to refrain from answering any deposition

questions. Id.

//

After Mr. Spear’s testimony, the undersigned questioned Plaintiff about the representations

he had made to Defense counsel at the deposition, and the basis for his statements: 

THE COURT: Let me finish the question before you respond, all right? Did you

believe that Mr. Spears was your attorney? He represented you?

MR. LOWRY: In a way, I thought that he, you know, he expressed interest. He

expressed interest, you know. Me thinking -- I just wanted help.

THE COURT: I understand that, but did you think that he was your attorney as

of that day?

MR. LOWRY: I don’t know. I can’t say. I don’t know. He talked like he could,

but I don’t know. I just – you know, it was 4:00 o’clock in the morning.

THE COURT: All right. Now, did Mr. Spears tell you not to answer questions at

your deposition?

MR. LOWRY: No, he didn’t tell me, and he told me like this that I could take the

time, yeah, to push it back. I’m -- I wasn’t trying to do anything illegal by that.

THE COURT: I’m not asking you that.

MR. LOWRY: Yeah, but --

THE COURT: But did you contact the attorneys for Heritage or MTS [Defendants]

and ask for a delay in the deposition?

MR. LOWRY: No, I didn’t. No.

THE COURT: And when you got to the deposition, did you ask for a delay at that

point?

MR. LOWRY: I -- to retain counsel.

THE COURT: No. No.

MR. LOWRY: To retain counsel.

THE COURT: Well, from what I’ve read, you told them that you were not going

to answer any questions because your attorney told you not to answer questions.

MR. LOWRY: I stated -- well, yeah, I did state it like that, but I should have

stated it another way. Like I told you, I’m not the most experienced person in the

world.

THE COURT: Yeah, but the truth is the truth.

8 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 8 of 30
 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

MR. LOWRY: Yeah.

THE COURT: You don’t have to be experienced to tell the truth. 

MR. LOWRY: Yeah. Well, that’s what I stated, and, like I say, I wasn’t trying to

delay anything. They can ask any questions they want, but the questions that I stated

in my complaints are the truth, and that’s all I have to state right there...9/

(Doc. No. 103 at 14 - 15.) 

 7. August 27, 2012: Mandatory Settlement Conference

 On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Judge Moskowitz, making several demands. 

(Doc. No. 122.) In the last paragraph of his letter, Plaintiff stated, “I would like to have a settlement

hearing by next month. And also a hearing within the next two weeks and I want everybody there in

the courtroom not in there [sic] offices that stops, I want them in the courtroom with me.” Id. at 4. 

On July 27, 2012, this Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order, which set a telephonic

MSC to be held on August 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. No. 131 at 3.) The parties were ordered to

submit confidential settlement statements directly to chambers no later than August 20, 2012. Id.

Expert witness discovery dates were also issued. Id. at 2.

On August 20, 2012, in compliance with the Order, Plaintiff submitted a settlement

statement to the Court. A CSO at the front door of the courthouse called chambers and said that

Plaintiff was outside of the building. The undersigned’s clerk answered the phone and asked the CSO

to instruct Plaintiff to bring his settlement statement to the Clerk’s Office located next door to the

courthouse. Chambers received the statement from the Clerk’s Office, stamped August 20, 2012. 

On August 23, 2012, this Court issued a Minute Order, which instructed counsel and parties

to appear personally in the undersigned’s chambers for the MSC, rather than participate telephonically. (Doc. No. 138.) The date and time of the MSC did not change. (Doc. Nos. 131, 138.) On

August 27, 2012, Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduled MSC. Defendants were present and the

undersigned requested that they wait for a half an hour to see if Plaintiff would appear. 

Meanwhile, both the undersigned and the clerk made phone calls to Plaintiff using both

9/ During the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff told the Court and Defense counsel, “My complaints are my

depositions. I shouldn’t have to say nothing. I’m sticking to what I have.” Plaintiff later stated, “I’ll take your

deposition, but there’s only certain questions they can ask me.”

9 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 9 of 30
 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

phone numbers on file. Both phone numbers were answered by a recorded message informing the

caller that Plaintiff was not accepting phone calls. 

//

The undersigned noted that one consideration for Plaintiff’s failure to appear could be that

the MSC was changed from a telephonic to personal appearance late in the prior week. However, the

Court was unsuccessful in reaching Plaintiff by telephone. At no time on August 27, 2012, or any

date thereafter, did Plaintiff contact the Court to explain the reason that he did not participate in the

MSC.10/ On August 27, 2012, the Court issued a Minute Order stating that it attempted to contact

Plaintiff by calling the two telephone numbers on file and, upon each call, the Court received a

recorded message that the phone number was not accepting calls at that time. (Doc. No. 139.) 

On September 19, 2012, Defense counsel filed a Declaration detailing fees and costs

associated with the failed attempt to hold an MSC. (Doc. No. 122.) 

8. August 2012: Failure to Comply with Discovery Deadlines

On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff failed to provide proper expert witness designation pursuant

to the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (Doc. No. 144

at 5.) 

On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff unilaterally terminated his second noticed deposition after only

twenty-five percent completion, also in violation of the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order. (Doc.

No. 144 at 5.) Defendants claim that Plaintiff was belligerent throughout the deposition and refused

to continue with the proceedings. Id. at 8. Plaintiff ended the deposition, stating: “You know what? 

The hell with this man. I’m done. That’s what you [sic] trying to do is get me all riled up. I’m going

over here to see the judge, and I’m going to type this shit up, man.” Id. According to Defendants,

Plaintiff also stated, “I’ll be seeing you in court next week.” Id.

10/ On October 30, 2012, Plaintiff called the undersigned’s chambers and told the clerk that he missed the MSC because

he was confused when he received the Amended Pretrial Order issued by the District Judge, which was filed on August

22, 2012. (Doc. No. 136.) The Amended Pretrial Order set a final pretrial conference before Judge Moskowitz on

December 5, 2012. Id. at 1. Plaintiff said that he thought the MSC had been moved to December 5, 2012, and that he did

not have a chance to explain his confusion to the undersigned. However, Plaintiff was ordered to file a Response to the

Order to Show Cause which was issued due to his failure to participate in the MSC. (Doc. No. 140.) Plaintiff did not file

a Response. The undersigned also provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to state his position at the sanctions hearing on

October 11, 2012. At the hearing, Plaintiff told the Court that he had received the Amended Pretrial Order on August 22,

2012, and he “got confused.”

10 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 10 of 30
 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. October 2, 2012: Order to Show Cause Hearing

On August 27, 2012, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why

sanctions should not issue against Plaintiff for his failure to participate in the MSC. (Doc. No. 140.) 

An OSC hearing was set for October 2, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 140.) On that date, Plaintiff

failed to appear for the hearing. Mr. Roger Bingham and Mr. Sam Sherman were present on behalf

of Defendants. The Court waited for Plaintiff until 8:40 a.m., ten minutes after the OSC hearing was

to begin, and then went on the record for the next twelve minutes, detailing the reasons for the OSC

hearing and noting that Plaintiff had failed to appear. 

After the failed attempt to conduct an OSC hearing, the undersigned’s clerk tried to contact

Plaintiff by telephone, but, once again, both of his phone numbers on file were not accepting calls. 

On October 3, 2012, the day after the failed OSC hearing, Plaintiff appeared at the Clerk’s

Office to file a Subpoena to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action. (Doc. No.

153.) Despite his presence in the federal court complex, Plaintiff did not contact the Court to explain

his failure to attend the MSC or the OSC.

10. October 11, 2012: Hearing on Defendants’ Instant Motion for

Terminating Sanctions

On October 11, 2012, the undersigned held a hearing on Defendants’ instant Motion for

Terminating Sanctions. (Doc. No. 144.) The Court began the hearing by asking Plaintiff for his

correct contact information and explained that it was Plaintiff’s responsibility to maintain updated

records so that the Court and Defendants could have confidence that he was receiving important

notifications about his cases. 

The undersigned noted that this litigation has a “tortured history,” and recited a chronology

of events in Plaintiff’s three cases, beginning with developments that occurred after Judge Moskowitz

granted the first sanctions motion on April 26, 2012. (Doc. No. 120.) The undersigned also reiterated

that Plaintiff has an obligation to sit and be deposed by Defendants, just as Defendants have the

obligation to sit for depositions properly noticed by Plaintiff. 

Both Plaintiff and Defense counsel were afforded the opportunity to make arguments at the

hearing. Defense counsel commented that, because Plaintiff had not filed a Response to the Motion

11 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 11 of 30
 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

for Terminating Sanctions, counsel was unsure what Plaintiff would state during oral argument. 

Defense counsel also noted that, despite numerous warnings issued by the Court, Plaintiff’s pattern

of uncooperative behavior has continued to the present. 

//

During Plaintiff’s argument, he stated that a “deposition is for them to change the story

around,” and told the Court yet again that his Complaints are his deposition. Plaintiff also said that

he would sit for a deposition, but asserted that there are only certain questions that Defendants are

able to ask. He noted that Defendants were “going outside the box” during his deposition by asking

him questions about his personal life. He also represented to the Court that he had not yet received

any discovery responses from Defendants. 

The Court questioned Plaintiff about his comment that his Complaints are his deposition,

and further instructed Plaintiff that walking out of a deposition due to disagreements about the

questions is not a proper response. Addressing Plaintiff’s comments about not receiving any

discovery from Defendants, the Court asked if Plaintiff had requested any discovery. In response,

Defense counsel stated that Defendants had received the first discovery request from Plaintiff one

week before the sanctions hearing. The Court instructed Plaintiff, “To get discovery, you have to

ask,” to which Plaintiff replied that he has asked for discovery in his Complaints. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court told Plaintiff that he had not said anything

during the sanctions hearing to cause the undersigned to believe that Plaintiff’s conduct in the future

would be any different than it was in the past. The Court commented that Plaintiff’s behavior has not

changed since Judge Moskowitz’s Order granting the first sanctions motion, and that the Court does

not expect that another Court order requiring Plaintiff to sit for a deposition would have a different

result. Plaintiff responded that he was “still fighting,” to which the undersigned observed that

Plaintiff was fighting on his own terms. 

Still standing at the courtroom podium, Plaintiff analogized himself to the Pittsburgh

Steelers defensive line, proclaiming, “We don’t bend and we don’t break either, we just hit you in the

mouth when you least expect it.”

C. Other Examples of Plaintiff’s Behavior

12 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 12 of 30
 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

The Court also has had the opportunity to witness Plaintiff’s general conduct and attitude

towards Defendants and their counsel by examining the various correspondence and discovery

responses he has sent them. As the Court found in its July 7, 2011, Report and Recommendation on

the first sanctions motion, overall, Plaintiff employs a hostile, argumentative tone and engages in

personal attacks, even in his discovery responses. Sometimes Plaintiff sprinkles barbs and jabs in

with responsive answers, and other times his responses are completely non-responsive. His writings

in general resist cooperation and seek to make the litigation process as difficult for Defendants as he

possibly can. 

The CM/ECF dockets for all three cases are littered with threats, unrealistic demands, and

irrelevant remarks made by Plaintiff, demonstrating that he has little grasp, despite numerous

admonishments and instruction by the Court, of the proper way to conduct himself throughout the

litigation process. In fact, it appears that Plaintiff is not interested in learning or understanding his

obligations in the litigation process. Instead, he seems content to continue his pattern of communicating with the Court on an ex parte basis, and making demands that are simply not grounded in reality. 

The undersigned acknowledges that, holding true to statements made at the ENE Conference over two

years ago,11/ Plaintiff has been afforded a considerable amount of leeway due to his status as a pro se

litigant. However, it is clear to the Court that after repeated warnings and guidance, and even an

Order granting terminating sanctions against him, Plaintiff still believes that it is he, not the Court,

who holds the power to dictate the pace, scope, and overarching tone of the litigation. 

More than three years after filing these lawsuits, and after all discovery has been closed,

Plaintiff conceded during the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, that he had just served Defendants

with his first request for discovery the week before the hearing.12/ Further, Plaintiff continues to

11/ The Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation on October 18, 2010. Before concluding the ENE, the undersigned

advised Plaintiff to conduct himself civilly and explained that the Court would grant him some leeway, but would not

ignore the rules simply because he was proceeding pro se. Plaintiff confirmed that he understood and said that he saw no

problems with following the rules.

12/ At the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff stood before the Court and declared, “Why haven’t I gotten any

discovery from them? I haven’t received anything.” Defense counsel then informed the Court that Plaintiff’s Subpoena

to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action, filed on October 10, 2012, the day before the sanctions

hearing, was the first request for discovery that Defendants had received from Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 153.) Plaintiff admitted

that was true. 

13 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 13 of 30
 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

demand exorbitant settlement amounts from Defendants, and insists that the Court facilitate a

settlement in his favor, all the while digging in his heels and refusing to play by the rules. No matter

how many times, or in how many different ways, the Court admonishes Plaintiff or takes time to

explain his obligations, Plaintiff stands firm in his position that all three cases will move forward

without any cooperation on his part. He continues to submit ex parte communications to the Court,

writing letters to both Judge Moskowitz and the undersigned, and calling both Judges’ chambers in

an attempt to explain his position directly to the Judges or clerks. 

The following are some illustrative examples of Plaintiff’s discovery responses to

Defendants and ex parte communications with the Court over the course of the past two years:13/

• December 19, 2011, Letter to Court: Judge [Gallo] you tried to do me wrong and

I’m not standing for it...there going to pay me for what I’m asking for and be happy

this settlement will be $15.2 million dollars... (Doc. No. 113 at 2.)

• December 19, 2011, Letter to Court: I want this resolved on March 9, 2012 they’ve

had there fun now it’s my turn... Id. at 2.

• January 31, 2011, Interrogatory Response: No, never convicted of a felony, have

you, what you are trying to do is get into my life in which by law has nothing to do

with any of the cases at all, it called invasion of privacy. (Doc. No. 88-4 at 16.)

• January 31, 2011, Interrogatory Response: I stated all facts in the complaints so

read that, I’m not typing this over again period.14/ Id. at 20.

• May 18, 2012, Letter to Court: I’m frustrated because you [Judge Moskowitz], the

law firm of Higgs, Fletcher, and Mack, and Wheatley, Bingham, Baker think that

I’m going to bow down you got life twisted. (Doc. No. 122 at 2.)

• June 18, 2012, Letter to Court: I don’t fear you [Judge Moskowitz] or no man at

all I want this to be taken care of NOW. (Doc. No. 126.)

• June 18, 2012, Letter to Court: ...we’ve not gone over Judge Gallo’s trying to

dismiss my case in which crying lawyer say that I’m threat to them, there just shook

up because I got them on the ropes and they don’t want to admit it. Id. at 3.

• June 18, 2012, Letter to Court: Judge Moskowitz, I demand this hearing and I want

all evidence produced right then and there of what crime was committed if this is

not produced I’m typing a lien to stop all trolleys and buses from leaving the yard

and you will sign this by law... Id. at 4.

13/ For the sake of readability, the undersigned will refrain from the use of “[sic]” when directly quoting Plaintiff’s

writings. All direct quotations appear as written.

14/ During the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff stated, “My complaints are my deposition. I shouldn’t have

to say nothing. I’m sticking to what I have.”

14 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 14 of 30
 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

• October 10, 2012, Letter to Court: ...and they think they are getting over Judge

Gallo on the 10th of October if I don’t have any of this in my hand or you try to

help them in any way I’m going to let Judge Moskowitz know and then if this case

is dismissed for any reason I know what my next move is going to be. (Doc. No.

153 at 7.) 

D. Developments Since First Sanctions Motion Was Granted on April 26, 2012

In addition to incorporating events that were detailed in this Court’s July 7, 2011, Report

and Recommendation, three specific developments since Judge Moskowitz’s Order Granting Heritage

and Gressett’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions form the basis for Defendants’ instant motion: (1)

Plaintiff’s continued refusal to be deposed; (2) Plaintiff’s failure to designate experts and submit

expert reports; and (3) Plaintiff’s failure to attend the MSC and subsequent OSC hearing. (Doc. No.

144 at 8-10.) All three of these grievances constitute violations of the Court’s Amended Scheduling

Order. (Doc. No. 131 at 1-3.) Plaintiff’s refusal to be deposed also violates the Court’s Order

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, and Plaintiff’s failure to participate in expert witness

discovery violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (Doc. No. 137 at 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.) Each

of these developments will briefly be set forth immediately below, but discussed more fully in Section

II.

1. Refusal to Participate in Noticed Deposition

Defendants have noticed and attempted to take Plaintiff’s deposition on three separate

occasions: (1) April 28, 2011: Plaintiff’s deposition was terminated when he lied to Defense counsel

and said that he had retained counsel and had been advised not to answer any deposition questions;

(2) August 9, 2012: Plaintiff unilaterally terminated his deposition before it was twenty-five percent

complete stating, “The hell with this, man;” and (3) August 31, 2012: Plaintiff failed to appear at the

properly noticed continuation of his deposition. (Doc. No. 144 at 13; Exh. B, Exh. C.) 

Defendants contend that three failed attempts are enough. (Doc. No. 144 at 13.) They

argue that Plaintiff was warned by this Court on August 23, 2012, that he “must sit for his deposition

and begin cooperating with opposing counsel in order to avoid additional sanctions.” (Doc. No. 137

at 2.) Plaintiff chose to ignore that clear order, as well as the July 27, 2012, Amended Scheduling

Order, which reopened fact discovery for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition and

15 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 15 of 30
 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

conducting follow-up discovery that stemmed from Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. No. 131.)

//

//

//

 2. Failure to Designate Experts and Submit Expert Reports

On July 27, 2012, this Court directed the parties to exchange a list of all expert witnesses

expected to be called at trial no later than August 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 131 at 2.) The Order provided

instructions as to the specific information that must be included in the expert witness list. Id. On

August 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an expert witness list. (Doc. No. 132.) Defendants contend that

Plaintiff’s submission is “grossly deficient” because he failed to provide information about the

identity of the expert, contact information, or rates. (Doc. No. 144 at 9.) On August 7, 2012,

Defendants served an objection to Plaintiff’s designation, but as of the filing of the instant Motion,

Defendants had received no response to their objection. Id.

The Court also required each expert witness designated by a party to prepare a written

report to be provided to all other parties no later than August 31, 2012. (Doc. No. 131 at 2.) As of

the filing of the instant Motion, Defendants had received no expert witness reports from Plaintiff. 

(Doc. No. 144 at 10.)

3. Failure to Attend Mandatory Settlement Conference

On August 27, 2012, as discussed in detail above, Plaintiff failed to appear for the Court

Ordered MSC. Counsel for Defendants were present and the Court was unsuccessful in reaching

Plaintiff by telephone. The Court issued an OSC, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions

should not issue for his failure to appear, or to be available by telephone. (Doc. No. 140.) 

On September 19, 2012, Defense counsel, Mr. Bingham, filed a Declaration outlining his

fees and costs associated with the failed MSC. (Doc. No. 146.) Defendants incurred $1,856.00 in

attorney’s fees, and $37.50 in costs related to the MSC. Id. at 3. 

On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff once again failed to appear, this time for the OSC hearing.

16 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 16 of 30
 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may impose broad discovery sanctions for failure to obey a court order that

compels discovery, up to and including “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).

Dismissal and default are appropriate only when circumstances evidence willful

disobedience of court orders or bad faith conduct. Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334,

1337 (9th Cir. 1985). “‘[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant’ is

all that is required to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d

943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1341). The Court may consider the party’s

motivations, and can consider his “dilatory and obstructive conduct” in the case and other related

cases. See Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 344 (5th Cir. 1998).

In addition to a finding of willfulness or bad faith, the Ninth Circuit has provided the

following five nonexclusive factors that the sanctioning court may use to determine whether casedispositive sanctions are just:

(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.

Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Because “factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case-dispositive sanctions, . . . [factors]

3 and 5, prejudice and availability of less drastic sanctions, are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs v. Electric

Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). Further, “factor 5 involves consideration of three

subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative sanctions, whether it tried them, and

whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of dismissal.” Id. “[W]hat is most

critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is

whether the discovery violations ‘threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.’” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Since Judge Moskowitz’s April 26, 2012, Order Granting Defendants’ Heritage and

Gressett’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Plaintiff has continued to engage in unacceptable

17 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 17 of 30
 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

conduct, and Defendants continue to incur costs and attorneys’ fees in an attempt to defend

themselves. As a result, Defendants’ pursuit to defend themselves has become exceedingly and

unreasonably difficult due to Plaintiff’s active efforts to delay and obstruct the litigation process. 

Plaintiff has blatantly violated two recent Court Orders which required his appearance before the

undersigned. He demanded that the Court convene an MSC and require personal appearances by all

parties, but he failed to participate when an MSC was scheduled. Defense counsel, on the other hand,

appeared in chambers on both occasions. By failing to appear without prior notice, or a request to the

Court to continue the date, Plaintiff demonstrated disregard for Defense counsel’s time, as well as the

undersigned’s time. 

The parties, Judge Moskowitz, and this Court have been involved in these three cases for 

more than three years. The tumultuous chronology of events in this litigation came to an unfortunate

climax on June 24, 2011, when Plaintiff lied to the undersigned in open court during the first sanctions

hearing. The Court noted in its Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff “actively lied about being

represented by counsel to avoid being deposed,” and then lied at the hearing when confronted with

clarifying questions from the Court. (Doc. No. 103 at 18.) Despite the extensive time and effort spent

by Defendants, Judge Moskowitz, and the undersigned, and what is likely to be significant costs

incurred by Defendants, Plaintiff continues to recycle arguments and repeat stall tactics that he has

been utilizing throughout this litigation. He continues to demand that Defendants settle all three cases

for an incredibly large amount of money, and authors letter upon letter to the Court insisting that it

facilitate a settlement in his favor. He repeatedly proclaims that he has not received any citations, and

weaves that irrelevant position throughout his arguments, despite the Court’s reminders that he

brought these civil lawsuits himself. 

Moreover, Plaintiff still refuses to be deposed. He maintains the position that everything

he has to say is stated in his Complaints. He continues to assert that Defendants may not ask him

questions about his past. As a result of properly noticing Plaintiff’s deposition on three separate

occasions, Defendants have incurred the cost of a videographer and court reporter on three separate

occasions. (Doc. No. 144 at 13-14.) 

The District Judge has already granted a Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff

18 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 18 of 30
 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

which resulted in dismissal of two Defendants. (See Doc. No. 120.) However, although terminating

sanctions were granted, Plaintiff has yet to cooperate. While it does appear, and the Court certainly

appreciates, that Plaintiff has significantly reduced the intensity of his threats directed towards

Defendants and the Court, warnings and demands remain threaded throughout his ex parte

communications with the Court. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s recent behavior, coupled with his arguments at the October

11, 2012, sanctions hearing, make clear that he has continued, and undoubtedly will continue, to

exhibit the same type of uncooperative, discourteous behavior that he has demonstrated since the birth

of these lawsuits. After repeated admonishments and instructions from the Court, both verbal and

written, Plaintiff continues to operate on his own terms, ignoring Court Orders, and providing empty

excuses for his lack of cooperation.

These recent developments, along with Plaintiff’s prior conduct which led this Court to

recommend, and Judge Moskowitz to grant, the first sanctions motion, the inefficacy of the Court’s

warnings and orders, and the anticipated inefficacy of lesser sanctions, combine to inform the

undersigned’s strong belief that the only sanction that is practically available to the Court is to dismiss

Plaintiff’s cases against Defendants.

A. Plaintiff Has Acted With Willful Disobedience and Bad Faith

Defendants base the instant Motion on the Court’s prior determination regarding Plaintiff’s

willful disobedience of Court Orders and bad faith in lying to the Court, along with Plaintiff’s

belligerent and egregious conduct throughout the litigation. 

Defendants also base their Motion on Plaintiff’s recent behavior as evidenced by his refusal

to sit for a deposition in violation of Court Orders, and his failure to adhere to the Court’s Orders to

identify experts, submit expert reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)(A), and attend the MSC. (Doc. No. 144 at 5, 13-14.) Defendants argue that when the

aforementioned acts are considered in conjunction with his prior and ongoing misconduct, “Plaintiff’s

defiance is unquestionably willful and in bad faith.” Id.

1. Willful Disobedience of Court Orders and Bad Faith Conduct

On July 27, 2012, and August 23, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff in no uncertain terms,

19 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 19 of 30
 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

to allow Defendants to take his deposition. (Doc. Nos. 131, 137.) However, Defendants claim that,

on August 9, 2012, Plaintiff was belligerent throughout the deposition and unilaterally terminated the

deposition after only twenty-five percent completion. (Doc. No. 144 at 8.) He then filed a Motion

for Protective Order, looking to the Court to excuse him from having to sit for a deposition. (Doc.

No. 135.) After Plaintiff’s Motion was denied, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition again, and

this time, he failed to appear. The failed appearance marked the third time that Defendants had to pay

for a videographer and court reporter, only to have Plaintiff refuse to cooperate. 

This Court has previously determined that Plaintiff lied and acted in bad faith to avoid

deposition and frustrate Defendants’ pursuit of the truth. (Doc. No. 103 at 25.) He lied both about

being represented by counsel and about counsel’s advice that he should say nothing at the deposition. 

Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff was somehow mistaken that Mr. Spears represented him, he

could not possibly have been mistaken about Mr. Spears’s alleged advice, as counsel stated in no

uncertain terms that he never advised Plaintiff to not answer deposition questions. The undersigned

accepted Mr. Spears’s representation, as he in fact would not have had any reason to give such advice. 

Moreover, at the first sanctions hearing, Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Spears did not advise him to avoid

questioning. In the July 7, 2011, Report and Recommendation regarding the first sanctions motion,

this Court found, “If this litigation is allowed to proceed, Plaintiff will certainly continue to evade

discovery[,] making it impossible for [Defendant Heritage] to defend itself.” Id. As expected, this

foreshadowing turned out to be right on point.

 On a separate occasion, Plaintiff was ordered to be deposed, and he failed to comply. He

did not contact Defendants to let them know that he would not be attending, rather, he just failed to

appear. Further, Plaintiff knew that the Court did not have his correct phone number or a reliable

address to receive mail, but he did not take any action to correct those problems. He failed to respond

to the OSC, as ordered by the Court, yet he appeared in the federal court complex the day after the

OSC hearing to file a subpoena which demanded discovery items from Defendants and included a

masked warning to the undersigned. All of these actions demonstrate that Plaintiff is only willing to

participate in this litigation on his own terms. 

20 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 20 of 30
 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

This Court previously found that Plaintiff’s intentionally deceitful conduct resulted in

unnecessary expense to Defendants, yet another delay of the litigation process, and, more

significantly, the frustration of Defendants’ ability to engage in one of the most widely-used and

informative discovery tools used in litigation today. (Doc. No. 103 at 27-28.) These developments

factored into the undersigned’s finding on July 7, 2011, that Plaintiff’s conduct was in bad faith.

//

B. Terminating Sanctions Are Appropriate

After considering the five factors that bear on whether case dispositive sanctions are just,

the undersigned concludes that dismissal is a just and appropriate sanction.15/

1. Public Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation

This factor weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff’s past and anticipated future conduct

is the antithesis of expeditious resolution. Plaintiff has continued to unnecessarily undermine the

smooth flow of litigation, and the undersigned fully anticipates that he will continue to do so in the

future. Plaintiff has been informed numerous times and on many different occasions that his actions

are stalling the litigation and that he must cooperate in order for the cases to move forward. It is clear

to the Court that Plaintiff only wants the cases to move forward if they advance in his favor, and his

vision of a resolution is simply that Defendants pay him all, or substantially all, of the money he

demands, which is in the multi-million dollar range. The Court is at a loss to understand how Plaintiff

continues to demand that the cases move expeditiously toward trial, when he refuses to be deposed,

participate in expert discovery, and sent his first request for discovery to Defendants three and a half

years after filing the lawsuits. Therefore, were Plaintiff’s cases allowed to proceed, the public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of cases will almost certainly not be satisfied.

2. The Court’s Need To Manage Its Docket

The Court’s need to manage its docket is great, as the Southern District of California is one

of the busiest districts in the nation. Despite the Court’s impacted docket, Plaintiff’s behavior has

15/ The undersigned acknowledges that these factors are not “a mechanical means of determining what discovery

sanction is just, . . . a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, [or] a script for making what the

district judge does appeal-proof,” but merely “a way for a district judge to think about what to do.” Valley Eng’rs v. Elec.

Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, these factors demonstrate that dismissal is just under the

circumstances here.

21 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 21 of 30
 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

necessitated the Court’s direct intervention on numerous occasions over the past two years. The

undersigned has had to referee disputes that ordinarily do not materialize in the vast majority of civil

cases on the Court’s calendar. Further, Plaintiff’s numerous ex parte communications with chambers

have consumed additional Court resources. After repeated admonishments to cease his ex parte

communications, in the week following the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff called

chambers in an attempt to discuss the hearing, and submitted two separate letters to the Court, one

which was filed and one which he asked the clerk not to file after he dropped it off at the Clerk’s

Office. 

Further, the undersigned, his clerk, and a legal extern all spent time waiting for Plaintiff

to appear for both the MSC and the OSC, to no avail. The undersigned’s calendar was blocked off

for two hours for the MSC and one hour for the OSC. This was time that could have been spent

facilitating settlement in other civil matters on the Court’s docket. The Court fully expects that

Plaintiff’s three cases will continue to require its active supervision, and Plaintiff has given the Court

no reason to believe otherwise. The undersigned is mindful that Plaintiff is representing himself and

that pro se litigants often require extra attention and time. This is not a problem, and the undersigned

welcomes the opportunity to assist pro se litigants to the extent that fairness, neutrality, and

impartiality allow. However, Plaintiff has taken advantage of the Court’s resources, willingness to

allow him leeway, and repeatedly has broken his promises to conduct himself in a civil and courteous

manner in his dealings with the Court and counsel. His behavior has resulted in numerous

unnecessary court appearances, the frequent issuance of orders, and two extensive Reports and

Recommendation, all of which typically do not issue, even in other pro se cases. In the future, such

a high level of supervision will undoubtedly continue to consume judicial resources that could be

devoted to other matters.

Further, although the Court maintains thorough files for all of its civil cases, the

circumstances surrounding this case have led to the creation and maintenance of an extensive file,

much larger than most civil case files, as the Court has found it necessary to document every phone

call, voice message, and the circumstances surrounding missed court appearances. This is simply not

an efficient use of judicial resources. Plaintiff has hijacked this litigation from the beginning, stalling

22 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 22 of 30
 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

the proceedings and refusing to cooperate with opposing counsel. He has not given the Court any

reason to believe that his behavior will be different going forward. Therefore, the Court is left with

no other option but to recommend to Judge Moskowitz that Defendants’ Motion for Terminating

Sanctions be granted.

//

//

3. Prejudice to Other Parties From the Discovery Violations

“A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s actions impair the defendant’s ability to go

to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Lewis

& Co., 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th

Cir. 1993). The foregoing quote succinctly and accurately reflects the prejudice Defendants have

suffered and undoubtedly will continue to suffer.

Plaintiff’s overall conduct in this case also plays a role in the undersigned’s analysis. 

Plaintiff has conducted himself throughout this litigation in an aggressive, defiant manner that has led

to unnecessary delay of the litigation process and difficulty for Defendants. He has cooperated only

when he felt like doing so and defied more than one Court Order because he disagreed with it. The

overall result of Plaintiff’s conduct is that, three and a half years after these cases were filed, the

parties are likely no closer to reaching a settlement or being prepared for trial than they were at the

beginning of the litigation. Discovery is a crucial part of litigation and allows each party the

opportunity to obtain information and evidence to prove its case or defend itself. However, when one

party obstructs the process to such a degree that another party cannot engage in discovery, the

prevented party ultimately cannot fully defend itself. 

If Defendants cannot depose Plaintiff, they cannot pursue a critical litigation tool and are

prevented from collecting evidence in their own defense as a result. Defendants’ inability to defend

themselves not only prejudices them, it does so in a severe manner.

Finally, as stated in this Court’s July 7, 2011, Report and Recommendation on the first

sanctions motion, it is abundantly clear that the Court’s Orders have little to no impact on Plaintiff’s

behavior, and he will continue with similar behavior into the future. Plaintiff stood before this Court

23 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 23 of 30
 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

at the sanctions hearing on October 11, 2012, and insisted that he would not answer all of Defendants’

deposition questions because they have asked him about his past and everything that he wants to say

is already in his Complaints. From the beginning, Plaintiff has unnecessarily made the discovery

process excruciatingly difficult, if not impossible. As this Court stated in July of 2011, “Even if

Plaintiff sits for deposition, the Court is certain that he will make every effort to disrupt the

deposition, avoid answering questions, respond with extreme aggression or argument, and to generally

disrupt [Defendant’s] pursuit of any information that could even remotely help in its defense.” (Doc.

No. 103 at 31.) This Court’s forecasts have proved to be correct. The Court also noted, “Although

the Court could order Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff’s demonstrated ability and willingness to lie and

obstruct the process casts doubt over any testimony he may provide.” Id. at fn. 10. This strategy has

been Plaintiff’s modus operandi throughout this case, as evidenced by his correspondence, discovery

responses, and failure to comply with Court Orders, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that

he can constructively participate in the future.16/ Moreover, as the Court found at the hearing on the

first sanctions motion, Plaintiff will lie if he believes doing so would benefit him.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals long ago saliently explained the rationale for imposing

terminating sanctions for a plaintiff’s obstructive behavior during discovery. The Court wrote:

Appellants advance the argument that it was error for the trial court to penalize

them with . . . dismissal without first ordering them to appear for their scheduled

depositions. Rule 37 sanctions are contemplated when there has been virtually

total noncompliance with discovery. Yet, a direct order by the Court . . . is not

a necessary predicate to imposing penalties under Rule 37(d). When it has been

determined that a party has willfully failed to comply with the rules of

discovery, it is within the discretion of the trial court to dismiss the action. 

Litigants may oppose discovery requests by seeking a protective order from the

court; they cannot be permitted to frustrate discovery by refusing to comply

with a proper request. For courts to permit litigants to disregard the responsibilities that attend the conduct of litigation would be tantamount to “encouraging

dilatory tactics.” The dismissal sanction, although severe, is a necessary tool,

both to punish in the individual action and to deter future abuses of the

discovery process.

Al Barnett & Son, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 611 F.2d 32, 35-36 (3d Cir. 1979) (citations

omitted) (overruled in part on other grounds). Unlike the district court in Al Barnett, this Court has

ordered Defendant - twice - to appear for his deposition. (Doc. Nos. 131, 137.) The Court has even

16/ The root cause of this inability is, as the undersigned told Plaintiff at the October 2010 ENE, his intense emotions and

detestation for Defendants and their counsel.

24 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 24 of 30
 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

warned Plaintiff that terminating sanctions could issue if he does not comply with discovery. (Doc.

Nos. 75, 150.) Without opposing discovery in Court, other than his Motion for Protective Order

which dealt only with his deposition and was denied, Plaintiff has taken it upon himself to dictate how

discovery shall proceed, which interrogatories he wishes to answer, to what extent he wishes to

answer them, and how and when depositions shall proceed–or not. Plaintiff operates by his own rules,

and the rules by which Defendants are bound seem to matter little to him.

Not only have Defendants suffered serious prejudice to date, this Court is convinced that

they will continue to suffer severe prejudice into the future. Such prejudice will increase by leaps and

bounds with the time for trial looming17/ and Defendants left without the ability to garner information

in their defense.

The Court understands that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and recognizes that this has the

strong potential to pose challenges for Plaintiff and for the litigation process as a whole. However,

the lack of respect for the Court and opposing counsel, and the disregard for any sort of attempt at

cooperation, leads this Court to the determination that granting Defendants’ Motion for Terminating

Sanctions is the only option remaining. Plaintiff cannot and will not continue to lead everyone

through an exhaustive maze, only to end back at square one. The Court has spent a significant amount

of time and resources in an attempt to convince Plaintiff that cooperation is his only option. However,

even a motion for terminating sanctions being granted has proved to be futile. 

4. Public Policy Favoring Disposition on The Merits

Although this factor ordinarily cuts against imposing case-dispositive sanctions, the

undersigned does not believe that this important public policy would be fulfilled if Plaintiff’s

cases are allowed to continue. Plaintiff’s obstructive conduct will very likely mean that a true

adjudication on the merits may never be achievable in the end.

5. Whether Less Drastic Sanctions Are Available

On March 25, 2011, April 26, 2012, July 27, 2012, August 23, 2012, August 27, 2012, and

September 14, 2012, the undersigned expressly notified Plaintiff that sanctions could issue. (Doc. No.

17/ On August 22, 2012, the District Judge filed an Amended Pretrial Order, setting the jury trial to begin on February

4, 2013. (Doc. No. 136.) 

25 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 25 of 30
 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

75 at 5; Doc. No. 120 at 4; Doc. No. 131 at 2; Doc. No. 138 at 1; Doc. No. 140 at 1; Doc. No. 145 at

2.) However, Plaintiff still proceeded to violate Court Orders, lie to the undersigned in open court,

and successfully evade deposition. The undersigned is certain that any sanction short of termination

of these cases will ultimately fail to reign in Plaintiff’s conduct or compel him to conform his

behavior. This assessment is based on the undersigned’s observation of Plaintiff; multiple unheeded

warnings, both informally on the telephone and in person and formally on the record and in written

orders; his continued failure to abide by the Court’s Orders; and his active obstruction of the litigation

process. Stern warnings have not worked, the possibility of lesser sanctions have not worked, and

monetary sanctions will be empty and ineffective because Plaintiff has qualified to proceed in forma

pauperis and does not have any assets. (See Doc. Nos. 2, 3 (IFP motion and order granting motion).)

Moreover, issue and claim preclusion sanctions will also be ineffective. Defendants will

continue to suffer severe prejudice short of precluding Plaintiff from presenting evidence in support

of all of the issues and claims in this case. This is because Plaintiff has demonstrated a wholesale and

routine propensity to prevent Defendants from gathering evidence in their own defense. This is not

a case where a party violated one isolated discovery order or refuses to produce just one document,

the punishment for which could be to preclude evidence on a discrete issue or claim. When a party

demonstrates a systematic practice of obstructing an opposing party’s discovery efforts, selective issue

and claim preclusion will not ameliorate the overall prejudice the aggrieved party suffers. As Defense

counsel acknowledged at the October 11, 2012, sanctions hearing, Plaintiff’s uncooperative behavior

has been a “pattern.” Plaintiff’s continued obstructive conduct will necessarily lead to the preclusion

of a growing list of issues.

Based on experience and observation, the undersigned can come to no other conclusion that

the only effective or practical solution here is dismissal.

C. This Case Compared to Other Cases

Although termination of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Rule 37 is one of the most severe of

sanctions, courts have imposed this sanction where appropriate. In the context of depositions, most

cases impose this sanction for missing or avoiding several depositions. What sets the instant cases

26 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 26 of 30
 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

apart from the ones below is Plaintiff’s active deceit to thwart deposition, as opposed to passive

avoidance.

In Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964), the Ninth Circuit

upheld the district court’s entry of default against an individually-named defendant after he failed to

appear for several depositions and his counsel informed the court that he would not appear for

deposition due to poor health. Dolman, 333 F.3d at 266-70. Although there was “doubt as to whether

claimed disability was genuine,” id. at 266, the district court’s entry of default was not a result of any

active deception, but was based, inter alia, on the defendant’s passive acts of not appearing for

multiple depositions and indicating that he would submit to deposition on his own terms. See id. at

267-69.

In Hall v. Johnston, 758 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit affirmed entry of

default against a defendant who failed to appear at two noticed depositions without any justification. 

The sanctioned party had two opportunities to appear for two noticed depositions, but failed to appear

at both without justification. Id. at 422. The sole basis for entry of default against the sanctioned

party was his failure to appear at two depositions. See id. at 424-25. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the

trial court’s entry of default. Id. at 425. Significantly, beyond missing two depositions, there is no

indication in Hall that the sanctioned party had acted improperly or in bad faith at any other time

during the life of the case.

More recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, although by unpublished memorandum

disposition, a district court’s dismissal based on “failure to prosecute where [the plaintiff] failed to

respond to discovery requests, attend her deposition, produce initial disclosures, submit a Pretrial

Order, attend the final Pretrial Conference, or file an opposition to the defendant’s Motion for

Terminating Sanctions.” Drumgoole v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 316 Fed. Appx. 606, 607 (9th Cir. 2009). 

All of the above conduct involved passive behavior such as failing to attend deposition.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit also recently affirmed dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s case for

his “refusal to sit for a deposition and otherwise comply with discovery,” which included failing to

produce documents. Oliva v. Trans Union, LLC, 123 Fed. Appx. 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2005). Again,

27 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 27 of 30
 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

this case involved a passive failure to attend deposition or produce documents, rather than overt

deceptive conduct.

Defendants’ instant motion is based, in part, on Plaintiff’s unacceptable conduct at two

depositions and his failure to attend a third deposition altogether. The nature of Plaintiff’s conduct

is significantly more reprehensible as compared to the cases outlined above, as he took the

affirmative, active step of lying in order to avoid the first deposition. He then took the affirmative

step of filing a Motion for Protective Order asking the Court to excuse him from being deposed. 

(Doc. No. 135.) When the Court denied his Motion for a Protective Order, he chose not to appear

anyway. As this Court previously found, actively lying is markedly more sinister than passive

avoidance by failing to appear. Even one demonstrated incident of lying establishes the capacity and

willingness to obstruct the truth finding process, flouts the integrity of the process, and casts heavy

doubt on its fairness. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348-49

(9th Cir. 1995) (discussing deceit in the context of the Court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions,

not under Rule 37; “It is well settled that dismissal is warranted where, as here, a party has engaged

deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings: ‘courts have

inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in

conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.’”) (citation omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff lied to the Court at a hearing on the record, and then defied a Court Order

that he did not agree with. The Court should not have to wait for more lies or defiant behavior to

surface before being able to act. Simply put, Plaintiff’s conduct in these cases has been utterly

inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice, and these cases are in line with the

aforementioned cases that have affirmed the imposition of terminating sanctions. 

D. Defendants Should Bear Their Own Attorneys Fees and Costs for the MSC

Although Defendants do not seek costs from Plaintiff in their Motion for Terminating

Sanctions, they filed a Declaration of attorney Roger P. Bingham regarding fees and costs associated

with the failed MSC. (Doc. No. 146.) Mr. Bingham declares that Defendants incurred $1,856.00 in

attorneys fees and $37.50 in costs related to the MSC. Id. at 3. However, based on the balance of

equities, the undersigned recommends that fees and costs not be awarded to Defendants.

28 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 28 of 30
 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

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the Court award Defendants “reasonable

expenses, including attorney’s fees” “[i]nstead of or in addition to” terminating sanctions. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(c). The award of expenses under this rule is mandatory unless Plaintiff can show that

his conduct was “substantially justified” or if “other circumstances make an award of expenses

unjust.” Id. Based on the discussion above, Plaintiff cannot show that his conduct was justified in

any way, much less substantially so. However, as explained below, other circumstances render the

award of costs unjust.

The practical reality here is that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and has no assets

against which Defendants could collect a costs award. (See Doc. Nos. 2, 3 (IFP motion and order

granting motion).) Further, given Plaintiff’s financial state, any award against him would likely

impose an unjust burden. The undersigned does not wish to trivialize the fact that Defendants have

incurred attorneys fees and costs as a direct result of Plaintiff’s conduct, but the balance of equities

nonetheless favors Defendants bearing their own costs here.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ Motion be

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims in all three cases against Defendants Metropolitan Transit System,

Torrence Joseph, and Edwin Amriz be dismissed. 

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section

636(b)(1).

//

//

//

29 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 29 of 30
 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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than December 3, 2012, any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those

objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2012

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

30 09CV882, 09CV898, 09CV1141

Case 3:09-cv-01141-BTM-WVG Document 133 Filed 10/31/12 Page 30 of 30