Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03409/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sasha Douglas Irwin,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Tanner Davison,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-3409-PHX-SRB (DMF) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 27). 

Plaintiff has responded in opposition (Doc. 36), and Defendant has replied (Doc. 39). This 

motion is ripe for decision. Because undersigned recommends granting the sanction 

requested by Defendant pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 37, this report and recommendation 

follows.

I. Background

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

In October, 2018, this case was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court 

to this Court (Doc. 1). On November 20, 2018, the Complaint was dismissed with leave 

to amend (Doc. 4). The First Amended Complaint was filed in December 2018, and after 

screening, on April 1, 2019, the Court ordered that “Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a Fourth 

Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Davison in Count One” regarding the 

November 2017 alleged events, and required Davison “to answer that portion of the First 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

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

Amended Complaint” (Doc. 7 at 7). On April 10, 2019, a Scheduling Order issued setting, 

among other deadlines, a deadline for June 9, 2019, for filing motions to amend or to add 

parties and a deadline of August 8, 2019, to depose Plaintiff. (Doc. 8).1

On May 15, 2019,2 Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a motion to 

amend or to add parties, stating that he was waiting to receive video footage that would 

inform for filing a motion to amend (Doc. 10). Plaintiff asked for an excessively long 

extension (Doc. 10), which the Court declined to grant. The Court instead extended the 

motion to amend deadline more than two months to July 27, 2019 (Doc. 13).

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion to extend the deadline, this time to 

extend the deadline for ten additional days (Doc. 15). On August 2, 2019, the Court 

extended the deadline to file a motion to amend the complaint to August 12, 2019, which 

was longer than Plaintiff had requested (Doc. 18). In doing so, the Court advised Plaintiff 

that he must comply with LRCiv 15.1 regarding any proposed amended complaint (Id.). 

In the August 2, 2019, Order, the Court quoted LRCiv 15.1 in its entirety (Id.); thus Plaintiff 

knew that to move to amend the complaint again, he needed to comply with LRCiv 15.1’s 

specific requirements.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For: Third Request For Extension of 

Time to Amend Civil Complaint” (Doc. 19). On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 20), which was not compliant with court rules, including LRCiv 

15.1.

3 On August 29, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for another extension of 

 

1 The Scheduling Order set September 7, 2019, as the last day that discovery 

requests may be submitted and November 6, 2019, as the dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 

8 at 2). A motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant was timely filed (Doc. 

28), and Plaintiff’s response time has been extended to January 8, 2020 (Docs. 37, 38).

2 Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, this report and recommendation uses mailing 

dates as the filing dates for Plaintiff’s filings. See Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (“A petition is considered to be filed on the date a prisoner hands the petition to 

prison officials for mailing.”).

3 The proposed Second Amended Complaint sought, at a minimum, to add unknown 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputies and unknown Mesa Police Officers (Doc. 20 at 2). 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

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

time to amend the complaint and struck the noncompliant Second Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 21).

B. Plaintiff’s Deposition

On July 22, 2019, Defendant’s counsel noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for July 25, 

2019 (Doc. 14). On July 25, 2019, “defense counsel and the court reporter were present to 

take Plaintiff’s deposition telephonically. Plaintiff, however, was unavailable because, 

according to Jail staff, he was in Superior Court regarding his criminal case” (Doc. 22 at 

1). Defendant does not seek any sanction for this first deposition setting. 

On July 31, 2019, Defendant’s counsel filed an amended notice of deposition for 

August 7, 2019 (Doc. 17). On August 29, 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to extend 

the deposition deadline because at the August 7, 2019, deposition setting, Plaintiff had

refused to answer deposition questions until he filed an amended complaint with the Court 

(Doc. 22 at 1). The transcript of the August 7, 2019, deposition (Doc. 27-1 at 2-8) reflects 

that after spelling his name for the record, Plaintiff stated:

I'm going to go ahead and end this interview because I'm filing a second 

amended complaint and I'm not going to answer any questions referring to 

the first amended complaint or the original complaint.

(Doc. 27-1 at 4). After being informed by defense counsel that if Plaintiff did not answer 

questions, defense counsel could go to the Court and ask that Plaintiff be ordered to pay 

costs of the deposition, Plaintiff stated he would only answer deposition questions “after 

[the] second amended complaint is filed” and then hung up the phone (Doc. 27-1 at 5-6).

On September 3, 2019, the Court granted the defense motion to extend the 

deposition deadline, extending the deadline to complete Plaintiff’s deposition to September 

26, 2019 (Doc. 23). Thereafter, Plaintiff’s deposition was noticed for September 18, 2019 

(Doc. 25). Defense counsel stated that at the September 18, 2019, deposition setting, 

“Plaintiff again refused to answer any questions ‘[b]ecause [Plaintiff’s] criminal cases and 

[Plaintiff’s] civil cases concern each other’ [Ex. 2 at 4:13-22]” (Doc. 27 at 2). Defendant 

submitted the full transcript of the September 18, 2019, deposition supporting defense 

counsel’s account of what occurred at the deposition setting (Doc. 27-2 at 2-8). The Court 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 8
- 4 -

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

notes that at the start of the short and unsuccessful deposition, Plaintiff stated that he 

wanted to speak to his criminal attorney before his deposition and also that he would not 

do the deposition before consultations with civil attorneys set for the “next week or so” 

(Doc. 27-2 at 4). When Plaintiff was asked by defense counsel if he was going to answer 

any questions at the deposition taking place, Plaintiff responded, “No. I’ll put in a motion 

to extend time” (Doc. 27-2 at 5). 

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to answer telephonic 

deposition for thirty days so that he could confer with his attorney in his possibly related 

criminal matter (Doc. 26). On October 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion requesting that 

Plaintiff be compelled to answer deposition questions and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay 

the City of Mesa court reporter costs of $314.60 as sanction for Plaintiff’s refusal to answer 

any deposition questions at the August 7, 2019, and the September 18, 2019, depositions 

(Doc. 27). Defendants presented the court reporter invoices for the August 7, 2019, and 

September 18, 2019, deposition settings (Docs. 27-3 at 2, 27-4 at 2). Each invoice charges 

$157.30, for a total of $314.60 (Id.).

On November 13, 2019, this Court denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion for extension 

of time to answer telephonic deposition (Doc. 32). In the same Order, the Court extended 

the deadline to complete Plaintiff’s deposition, ordered that “Plaintiff shall present himself 

for deposition as noticed and shall respond to defense counsel’s deposition questions”, and 

stated that “[b]ased on the record before the Court, the sanctions against Plaintiff requested 

by Defendant Davison appear to be appropriate... [S]hould Plaintiff fail to present himself 

for the next deposition setting or fail to answer defense counsel’s deposition questions, the 

Court will consider additional sanctions against Plaintiff including dismissal of this 

lawsuit” (Doc. 32 at 2-3). 

In the briefing regarding Defendant’s motion for sanctions before the Court (Doc. 

27), Plaintiff does not dispute that the depositions were properly noticed, and Plaintiff does 

not dispute that he refused to answer any questions (Doc. 36). Plaintiff asserts that 

sanctions are not warranted because his August 7, 2019, intent of filing a second amended 

complaint and because of his upcoming attorney meetings after the September 18, 2019 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 4 of 8
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deposition setting were valid bases for his refusals to answer any deposition questions on 

August 7, 2019, and September 18, 2019 (Id.). 

II. Applicable Law and Analysis

Undersigned’s authority is limited, in this circumstance, to filing a report and 

recommendation to the District Judge. LRCiv 72.2 states in pertinent part:

In any motion in which the parties are seeking the sanctions provided for in 

Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), or (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the 

Magistrate Judge is inclined to grant such requests the Magistrate Judge shall 

be limited to filing a report and recommendation with the District Court; if 

the Magistrate Judge is inclined to deny any such request, he or she may enter 

an order thereon.

Defendant seeks as a sanction against Plaintiff the court reporter costs associated 

with Plaintiff’s deposition settings of August 7, 2019, and September 18, 2019 (Doc. 27).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 requires that a “party who wants to depose a person by oral 

questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party.” Here, even though 

Plaintiff was unable to attend his July 25, 2019, deposition because he was at a hearing in 

his criminal case, the noticing of that first deposition setting gave Plaintiff reasonable 

written notice that Defendant sought to take his deposition. Plaintiff could have filed a 

motion for protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) regarding his deposition upon 

receiving notice of the July 25, 2019, deposition setting, but did not do so. Indeed, Plaintiff 

was aware of the Scheduling Order deadlines, including the deadline to depose him of 

August 8, 2019. Plaintiff was able to file motions regarding the Scheduling Order and its 

deadlines as evidenced by his several motions to extend the deadline to file a motion to 

amend the complaint.

Even after the July 31, 2019, amended notice of deposition of Plaintiff for August 

7, 2019, Plaintiff did not file a motion for a protective order regarding his deposition. 

Instead, at his deposition on August 7, 2019, Plaintiff refused to answer questions, said he 

would answer questions after he had filed a Second Amended Complaint, and hung up the 

phone.

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 5 of 8
- 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

Plaintiff had no right to refuse to answer questions until after he had filed a Second 

Amended Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2) states regarding objections at a deposition:

An objection at the time of the examination--whether to evidence, to a party's 

conduct, to the officer's qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, 

or to any other aspect of the deposition--must be noted on the record, but the 

examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. 

An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and 

nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only 

when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the 

court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

Likewise, Plaintiff had no right to refuse to answer questions at his September 18, 2019, 

deposition setting. As Defendant points out, “Plaintiff has had over a year to confer with 

an attorney about this case” (Doc. 39 at 2).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4), “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or 

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 

37(d)(3) provides that sanctions for a party’s failure to present for deposition “may include 

any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).” Such sanctions include “directing that 

. . . designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing 

party claims,” “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated 

claims . . . , or from introducing designated matters in evidence,” “striking pleadings in 

whole or in part,” “staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed,” “dismissing the 

action or proceedings in whole or in part,” or “rendering a default judgment against the 

disobedient party.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(3) further 

provides that “[i]nstead of or in addition to [the above] sanctions, the court must require a 

party failing to act . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by 

the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an 

award of expenses unjust.”

On this record, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to come forward with justifications for 

his conduct or reasons why shouldering the cost of the court reporter would be unjust. See 

In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative, & Erisa Litig., 308 F.R.D. 113, 126 

(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (‘The noncompliant party bears the burden of showing that his failure to 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

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

comply was justified or that an award of expenses would be unjust.’)” The “central 

requirement of Rule 37 is that any sanction must be just, which requires in cases involving 

severe sanctions that the district court consider whether lesser sanctions would be more 

appropriate for the particular violation.” Alvarado v. Rainbow Inn, Inc., 312 F.R.D. at 29 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “As such, the choice of sanction should be guided by 

the concept of proportionality between offense and sanction.” Id. (internal punctuation 

omitted). Here, Defendant is seeking only out of pocket court reporter expenses, not more 

sever sanctions such as attorney’s fees for the August 7, 2019, and September 18, 2019, 

deposition settings. 

Plaintiff was required to move for a protective order before the deposition settings 

if he believed there was a valid basis based on the posture of this case or his criminal case 

to not answer questions at the deposition. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time for his 

deposition to take place was filed on September 24, 2019, six days after the second 

scheduled deposition was to occur despite that in late July, 2019, Plaintiff had notice 

Defendant intended to take Plaintiff’s deposition. See Docs. 14, 22, 23, 25, 26. Plaintiff’s 

failure to timely file a motion for protective order before either the August 7, 2019, or 

September 18, 2019, deposition settings supports the imposition of the measured sanctions

requested by Defendant. See Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 277 

(C.D. Cal. 2008) (“plaintiff’s failure to appear was not substantially justified since plaintiff, 

as discussed above, failed to file a motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c) before 

the date of the deposition”).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to answer questions at the deposition settings

of August 7, 2019, and September 18, 2019, was not substantially justified, the sanction 

requested by Defendant is appropriate and proportional given that it appears that Plaintiff 

answered questions at the December 3, 2019, deposition setting, and the award of court 

reporter costs to Defendant is just under all the circumstances presented.

Further, the dispositive motion deadline expired before Plaintiff answered any 

deposition questions. Thus, if Defendant so moves, the Court will consider allowing 

Defendant to file a second motion for summary judgment or supplement its pending motion 

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 7 of 8
- 8 -

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 summary judgment/statement of facts based on Plaintiff’s December 3, 2019, 

deposition testimony. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court grant the relief requested in 

Doc. 27 to order Plaintiff to reimburse Defendants $314.60 for the court reporter costs 

associated with the Plaintiff’s deposition settings of August 7, 2019, and September 18, 

2019.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The 

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen 

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 31st day of December, 2019.

Case 2:18-cv-03409-SRB-DMF Document 41 Filed 01/02/20 Page 8 of 8