Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

- 1 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff AND Counter-Defendant,

v.

CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC., ET 

AL.,

Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12cv665 JLS (JLB)

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 

JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 

12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE BP’S MOTIONS FOR 

DISPOSITIVE SANCTIONS; (2) 

NOTIFYING DEFENDANTS OF 

POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ENTRY 

OF DISPOSITIVE SANCTIONS; 

AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART BP’S MOTIONS 

FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Presently before the Court are plaintiff and counter-defendant BP West Coast 

Products LLC’s (BP) Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants Southland Petroleum, MK 

Oil, and Pacific Expotech (Motion 1), (ECF No. 446); Motion for Sanctions Against 

Defendants Chase Products, David Parker, Parshotam Kamboj, Cal Coast, Vasaya Oil, and 

Sharina Alloush (Motion 2), (ECF No. 447); and Motion for Sanctions Against Schiller 

Defendants for Violation of Court Orders (Motion 3). (ECF No. 448.) Also before the 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 18
- 2 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

Court are the defendants and counter-plaintiffs’ Named Guarantors/Dealer Defendants’ 

Response to BP’s Motions for Sanctions (Opposition), (ECF Nos. 464 & 465);

1 BP’s Reply 

to Schiller Defendants’ Response to BPWCP’s Motions for Sanctions (Reply), (ECF No.

466); Named Guarantors/Dealer Defendants’ Supplemental Response to BP’s Motions for 

Sanctions (Supplemental Opposition), (ECF No. 474); Named Guarantors/Dealer 

Defendants’ Amended Supplemental Response to BP’s Motions for Sanctions (Amended 

Supplemental Opposition), (ECF No. 475); and BP’s Reply to Schiller Defendants’ 

Supplemental Response to BPWCP’s Motions for Sanctions (Supplemental Reply), (ECF 

No. 476). 

Having considered the facts and the arguments, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE BP’s motions for dispositive sanctions and GRANTS IN PART AND 

DENIES IN PART BP’s motions for monetary sanctions. 

BACKGROUND

I. BP’s Motions

BP moves for sanctions against three groups of defendants based on common sets of 

facts. In essence, the alleged misconduct gets less severe with each motion, so that Motion 

1 sets forth the most serious episodes of misconduct whereas Motion 3 details the least 

serious. 

All three of BP’s motions ask for default judgment against the Defendants, dismissal 

of the Defendants’ counter claims, and reimbursement for BP’s attorneys’ fees and costs

in litigating this case against these Defendants. Motion 3 seeks these remedies from all 

1162franchisee and guarantor defendants (the Motion 3 Defendants) represented by 

attorney David A. Schiller, referred to by BP as the “Schiller Defendants.” (See ECF No. 

 

1 Although Defendants filed two separate responses to BP’s three motions, the two responses appear to be 

the same document. 

2 Throughout this case, it has not been clear exactly who Schiller’s clients are, and therefore who all of 

the defendant/cross-plaintiffs are. For purposes of its three motions for sanctions, BP has focused on the 

116 listed in Exhibit 1 attached to Motion 3. (ECF No. 448-3.) Schiller has not indicated that any 

Defendant on that list is not his client. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 18
- 3 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

446, at 6 (“[E]ach and every Schiller Defendant is in violation of at least two court 

orders.”).) Motion 1 and Motion 2 seek the same remedies from smaller subsets of the 

Motion 3 Defendants. 

A. Motion 3

Motion 3 seeks default judgment in BP’s favor on its Fifth Amended Complaint, 

dismissal of the Motion 3 Defendants’ Fourth Amended Counterclaims, and compensation 

to BP for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred litigating claims against the Motion 3 

Defendants. (Mot. 3, ECF No. 448-1, at 6.) As stated above, the Motion 3 Defendants are

a group of 116 franchisee and guarantor Defendants purportedly represented by attorney

David Schiller. (Id.)

BP argues these sanctions are justified because each of the Motion 3 Defendants 

violated at least two and sometimes all of a series of court orders, including a May 19, 

2015, order granting in part BP’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 404); a May 28, 2015, order 

granting in part another of BP’s motions to compel, (ECF No. 411); a June 2, 2015, order 

granting yet another of BP’s motions to compel, (ECF No. 421); and a July 7, 2015, Minute 

Order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the Motion 3 Defendants’ noncompliance with the Court’s discovery orders, (ECF No. 436).

BP does not allege that each of the 116 Motion 3 Defendants violated every order, 

but instead details particular shortcomings by individual Defendants,3(Mot. 3, ECF No. 

448-1, at 6–14), and states in its Reply that “each and every Schiller Defendant is in 

violation of at least two court orders.” (Reply, ECF No. 466, at 6.) Although the text of 

Motion 3 does not detail each alleged violation by each of the 116 Motion 3 Defendants, 

BP did attach an exhibit that lists all 116 Defendants and the orders BP alleges they

violated. (Mot. 3, Ex. 9, ECF No. 448-11.) 

 

3 For example, BP points out that, with regard to one of the discovery orders, BP received “responsive 

documents from nine (9) of the 116 Schiller Defendants). (Motion 3, ECF No. 448-1, at 10.)

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 18
- 4 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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. Motion 2

Motion 2 is directed against a subset of six of the 116 Motion 3 Defendants: Chase 

Products, David Parker, Parshotam Kamboj, Cal Coast, Vasaya Oil, and Sharina Alloush 

(the Motion 2 Defendants). In Motion 2, BP requests the sanctions of judgment in BP’s 

favor on its Fifth Amended Complaint, dismissal of the Motion 2 Defendants’ 

counterclaims against BP, and compensation to BP for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred 

litigating claims against the Motion 2 Defendants. (Mot. 2, ECF No. 447-1, at 5.)

BP alleges the Motion 2 Defendants engaged in generally the same misconduct with 

regard to the discovery orders outlined in Motion 3, (see Mot. 2, ECF No. 447-1, at 6-8), 

but that each member of this group of Defendants also failed to attend depositions on one 

or two occasions. (Id. at 9–11; see also Mot. 2, Ex. 14, ECF No. 447-16 (Record of Chase 

Products Non-Appearance); Mot. 2, Ex. 16, ECF No. 447-18 (Record of Parshotam 

Kamboj Non-Appearance); Mot. 2, Ex. 20, ECF No. 447-22 (Record of Vasaya Oil NonAppearance); and Mot. 2, Ex. 22, ECF No. 447-24 (Record of Cal Coast NonAppearance).) 

C. Motion 1

Motion 1 is directed against a subset of three of the 116 Motion 3 Defendants: 

Southland Petroleum, MK Oil, and Pacific Expotech (the Motion 1 Defendants). BP seeks 

the sanctions of default judgment against these 1 Defendants in BP’s favor with regard to 

BP’s Fifth Amended Complaint, dismissal of the Motion 1 Defendants’ counterclaims 

against BP, and compensation to BP for its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating 

its claims against the Motion 1 Defendants. (Mot. 1, ECF No. 446-1, at 4–5.)

In addition to the alleged violations of the Court’s discovery orders, (ECF Nos. 404, 

411, and 421), BP says these three Defendants failed to appear for their depositions. (Mot.

1, ECF No. 446-1, at 7–8.) Defendants Southland Petroleum and MK Oil were scheduled 

to be deposed on May 6, 2015. (Id.) Their attorney showed up to the deposition, but the 

deponents did not. (Id. at 8.) Similarly, Pacific Expotech did not appear for its May 8, 

2015, deposition. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Burkhardt ordered the parties to meet and confer 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 18
- 5 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

regarding the Motion 1 Defendants’ failure to attend depositions, payment of BP’s costs 

related to the deposition, and rescheduling the deposition. (Order, ECF No. 435; Order, 

ECF No. 445.) Despite several efforts by BP’s counsel to set a time to meet and confer 

with the Motion 1 Defendants’ attorney, Schiller, he never made himself available to meet 

and confer, and the Motion 1 Defendants did not make themselves available for depositions 

by July 17, 2015, as Magistrate Judge Burkhardt ordered. (Mot. 1, ECF No. 446-1, at 8–

11.) Magistrate Judge Burkhardt extended the July 17 deposition deadline “in the interest 

of justice, not for good cause shown,” and reiterated her order for the Motion 1 Defendants 

to reimburse BP for their non-appearances by July 31, 2015. (Order, ECF No. 445.) BP 

moved for dispositive sanctions, but Magistrate Judge Burkhardt advised that “dispositive 

sanctions . . . should be timely raised with District Judge Janis L. Sammartino’s chambers.” 

(Id.)

D. Defendants’ Opposition

The Defendants4collectively filed two Oppositions that appear to be substantively 

identical. (See ECF Nos. 464 and 465.) They first asked for more time, stating that attorney 

Schiller did not have access to his network server and the client records stored on it, and 

that requiring him to respond to these motions without the server would “deprive” them

“of a meaningful response.” (Opp’n, ECF No. 464, at 2.) In particular, Defendants stated 

attorney Schiller needed access to pleadings, discovery responses, all documents produced, 

all supplemental discovery, and emails to “refute and or respond to BP’s allegations.” (Id. 

at 3.)

Defendants next objected generally to BP’s motions for sanctions of default and 

dismissal, arguing that BP’s motions do not identify with sufficient particularity the 

misconduct attributable to each of the Defendants identified.5 (Id. at 3.) 

 

4

“Defendants” refers to the 116 Motion 3 Defendants, and does not include other defendants in this action. 

Defendants, including the Motion 1 and Motion 2 Defendants, submitted all responses to all three motions

collectively. 

5 The Defendants give examples of two particular defendants, Southwest Petroleum and West Coast 

Petroleum, against whom they say BP has not identified any specific misconduct. (Id. at 5.) In its Reply, 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 18
- 6 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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 went on to identify several particular Defendants, and respond to BP’s 

motions with respect to them.

In particular, Defendants argued that BP’s requested sanctions should not be issued 

against Sharina Alloush,6 who is one of the six Defendants identified in Motion 2. (Id. at 

5–6.) Sharina Alloush’s name appears on the franchise agreements and she is a party to 

this litigation. (Id. at 5.) Schiller argues that her failure to appear at depositions is not 

important because she “is a stay at home mom . . . who was never involved in the operation 

of the gasoline station and knows absolutely nothing about the facts relevant to this case.” 

(Id.) Rather, her husband, Baker7 Alloush, ran the gas stations and handled all 

communications with BP, and Baker Alloush was deposed “and informed BP and its 

counsel that his wife did not know anything about the business.” (Id.; see also Declaration 

of Sharina Alloush and Baker Alloush, ECF No. 465-2.) 

The Defendants respond with regard to Pacific Expotech, operated by Abraham 

Kurian, which is also named as a Defendant in Motion 1, arguing that sanctions are 

unwarranted because Mr. Kurian’s first missed deposition was a result of scheduling 

confusion and that he showed up for the second one, and simply was unaware that he 

needed to confirm it ahead of time. (Id. at 6.) BP Responds that the first missed deposition 

was not caused by simple confusion, but by Mr. Schiller’s own scheduling changes. 

(Reply, ECF No. 466, at 8–9.) As for the second missed deposition, BP says in its motion 

and in a supporting declaration that Mr. Schiller had advised BP’s counsel “not to travel 

for the depositions unless he advised otherwise,” and that despite repeated attempts to 

confirm Kurian’s August 6 deposition, BP never received a confirmation. (Id. at 9.) BP 

 

BP points out that, as stated in Motion 3, both defendants violated Court Orders 404, 411, 421, and 436, 

among other more particular violations detailed in the supporting exhibits attached to Motion 3. (Reply, 

ECF No. 466, at 7.) 

6

In their briefing, Defendants spell this name “Aloush,” but all other documents spell it “Alloush.”

7 Mr. Alloush’s name is spelled “Baker Aloush” in the Opposition, but is spelled “Bahkir Alloush” in the

declaration attached to the Opposition. At his deposition, Mr. Alloush said his name is spelled “Baker 

Alloush.” (ECF No. 447-20.) Accordingly, the Court uses the spelling identified at Mr. Alloush’s 

deposition. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 18
- 7 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

states that it was therefore “surprise[d]” when Mr. Kurian showed up for the Pacific 

Expotech deposition, and made arrangements to proceed; however, Mr. Schiller was not 

present that day and did not respond to emails and phone calls. (Id.) Because Mr. Kurian’s 

counsel was not present, BP could not proceed with the deposition. (Id.)

Finally, the Defendants respond in their Opposition to BP’s motions with regard to 

Mohammed Kaskas. (Opp’n, ECF No. 464, at 6–7.) Although Defendants do not explain 

exactly who Kaskas is, he is one of the 116 Motion 3 Defendants and, according to BP, a 

guarantor for five entity Defendants, including Southland Petroleum and MK Oil, both of 

which are Defendants named in Motion 1. (Reply, ECF No. 466, at 10.) Defendants 

contend that BP had the opportunity to ask Kaskas about all five Defendant entities at two 

depositions, and that “BP insisted on requiring Mr. Kaskas to unnecessarily appear for 

multiple depositions.” (Opp’n, ECF No. 464, at 6-7.) BP counters that Southland 

Petroleum and MK Oil were specifically ordered to produce a representative to be deposed 

but failed to do so, and that Kaskas “testified during his individual deposition that he does 

not know who Southland is and denies being a partner” with the guarantor for Southland 

Petroleum. (Reply, ECF No. 466, at 10.) BP states in its Reply and in a declaration that 

Kaskas’s counsel stated on the record that Kaskas was not a proper Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 30(b)(6) deponent for Southland Petroleum and that Kaskas said he was only 

involved with MK Oil for six months. (Id.) 

E. Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition

The Court held a hearing on these motions on September 17, 2015. Following that 

hearing, the Court granted the Defendants’ request for additional time to file a response “in 

light of the seriousness of the sanctions BP seeks and Schiller’s statement regarding his 

servers.” (Order, ECF No. 469, at 2.) Defendants’ Supplemental Opposition was due on 

October 15, 2015—more than two months after Schiller says his server crashed. (Id.) 

Defendants filed a Supplemental Opposition on October 15, 2015, and an Amended 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 18
- 8 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

Supplemental Opposition on October 22, 2015, without seeking leave from the Court or 

notifying the Defendants.8

By comparison to what attorney Schiller stated he would be able to show if given 

more time, Defendants’ Supplemental Oppositions are underwhelming. Attorney Schiller 

was presumably able to access his server, but despite this access to pleadings, discovery 

responses, all documents produced, all supplemental discovery, and emails, with only a 

couple of exceptions, Defendants have not responded to BP’s factual allegations and legal 

arguments with any greater degree of specificity. To the contrary, the earlier responses 

included greater detail about particular parties.

Attached to the Amended Supplemental Opposition is what BP aptly describes as 

“427 unlabeled, unidentified exhibits.” (Supp’l Reply, ECF No. 476, at 3.) As BP 

explains, “[s]everal exhibits are comprised of two to five pages of a larger document. 

Others are illegible. These 427 exhibits are not explained in the Amended Supplemental 

Opposition, nor are they responsive to the issues before the Court.” (Id.)

In its motions and attachments to those motions, BP identifies by name each 

Defendant and the particular instances of discovery misconduct that BP contends justify 

the sanctions it seeks. Once again, Defendants respond in a wholesale manner, stating that 

“BP seeks death penalty [dispositive] sanctions against all of the Dealer Defendants but 

fails to identify for each and every individual Defendant what alleged misconduct it 

attributes to each Defendant.” (Supp’l Opp’n, ECF No. 474, at 2; Am. Supp’l Opp’n, ECF 

No. 474, at 2.) That statement patently false. Motion 1 alleges specific instances of 

misconduct against the three Motion 1 Defendants, (see Mot. 1, ECF No. 446-1, at 4–11), 

Motion 2 alleges specific instances of misconduct against the six Motion 2 Defendants, 

(see Mot. 2, ECF No. 447-1, at 5–13; see also, e.g., Risner Decl., ¶¶ 18–19, 21, 71, 81–87, 

 

8 BP asks the Court to strike the Defendants’ Amended Supplemental Opposition. The Court agrees that 

Defendants have had more than enough opportunities to respond to BP’s motions and that the procedure 

followed in this filing was improper. However, having reviewed both of Defendants’ supplemental filings, 

which are nearly the same in terms of legal argumentation, the Court does not find anything in the 

Amended Supplemental Opposition that changes the ultimate resolution of BP’s motions at this stage. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 18
- 9 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

119–121; Exs. 14, 15, 22), and Motion 3 alleges specific instances of misconduct against 

the 116 Motion 3 Defendants, (see Mot. 3, ECF No. 448-1, at 9–14; Mot. 3, Ex. 9, ECF 

No. 448-11). In light of BP’s specificity with regard to the conduct alleged, Defendants’ 

statement is startling, and the Supplemental Oppositions are, overall, unresponsive. 

Defendants do, however, raise specific points with regard to a select few Defendants. 

For Defendants Southwest Petroleum and West Coast Petroleum, whom Defendants had 

mentioned in their earlier responses, Defendants contend that “BP was able to take the 

depositions of . . . representatives of both entities.” (Am. Supp’l Opp’n, ECF No. 475, at 

5.) 

Defendants also note that Motion 3 Defendant Jerry Zomorodian was deposed and 

produced documents at his deposition. Although Defendants make the point that 

Zomorodian was eventually deposed and produced some documents, it does not speak 

directly to Zomorodian’s compliance with Orders 404, 411, 421, and 436, which BP alleges

this particular Defendant violated. (See Mot. 3, Ex. 9, ECF No. 448-11, at 5.) 

BP levies the largest number of specific instances of discovery misconduct against 

the Motion 1 Defendants, Southland Petroleum, Pacific Expotech, and MK Oil. 

Defendants do not respond to those allegations whatsoever. As BP points out in its 

Supplemental Reply, “after having more than sixty days to respond, Schiller Defendants’ 

Supplemental Opposition mentions these three Defendants only one time—in the 

introductory paragraph—and never mentions them again.” (Supp’l Reply, ECF No. 476, 

at 5.) That paragraph does not address any of the substance of BP’s allegations or legal 

argument. (See Supp’l Opp’n, ECF No. 474, at 2.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 gives courts the power to impose sanctions on 

parties who do not comply with discovery orders, including: (i) directing that facts be taken 

as established “as the prevailing party claims,” (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from 

introducing certain evidence or from supporting or opposing certain claims or defenses, 

(iii) wholly or partially striking pleadings, (iv) staying further proceedings until orders are 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 18
- 10 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

obeyed, (v) dismissing the action in whole or in part, (vi) entering a default judgment 

against the disobedient party, or (vii) treating failure to obey most kinds of orders as 

contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Rule 37 also allows the court to order payment of 

expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the other party’s failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(C). 

When deciding whether to impose dismissal or default, courts “must” weigh five 

factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 180 (9th Cir. 1987). Due process requires 

that courts not dismiss a case under Rule 37 when “failure to comply is due to 

circumstances beyond the recalcitrant’s control.” Sigliano v. Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 310 

(9th Cir. 1981). However, when counsel or a party acts “willfully or in bad faith” in failing 

to comply with the rules of discovery or court orders, or acts with flagrant disregard of 

those rules or orders, the Ninth Circuit has “specifically encouraged dismissal.” Id. 

Willfulness or bad faith conduct is “disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control 

of the litigant.” Virtual Vision, Inc. v. Praegitzer Indus., Inc., 124 F.3d 1140, 1143 (9th Cir. 

1997) (quoting Henry v. Gill Industries, 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.1993)). 

In Virtual Vision, the bankruptcy court warned the litigant that if it did not comply 

with a discovery order, the court would enter default judgment. Id. at 1142. The litigant 

did not comply with the discovery order, and the bankruptcy court—as promised—entered 

default judgment in favor of the other party. Id. at 1143. The district court reversed the 

bankruptcy court, reasoning that the default judgment violated the litigant’s due process 

rights. Id. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and directed that court to reinstate 

the bankruptcy court’s default judgment, holding the litigant had the ability to comply with 

the discovery order, and failure to do so therefore amounted to willfulness, bad faith, or 

fault justifying default. Id. at 1145. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 18
- 11 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

Similarly, in Sigliano the plaintiff failed to respond to interrogatories. 642 F.2d at

309–10. The defendants filed a motion to compel, and before that motion was ruled on, 

filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 37. Id. at 310. The plaintiff requested more time to 

respond to the interrogatories and indicated generally that he opposed the motion to 

dismiss. Id. On the morning of a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff requested 

a continuance. Id. The court held the hearing that day, but the plaintiff did not appear. Id. 

The court continued the hearing to two weeks later, gave the plaintiff another four days to 

respond to the motion to dismiss, and indicated that if no response was timely filed the case 

would be dismissed under Rule 37. Id. The plaintiff did not file a timely response, and the 

district court dismissed the action. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal despite 

the plaintiff’s argument that dismissal was improper because the court never issued an 

order compelling discovery. Id. In affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit 

reemphasized that dismissal is encouraged when litigants repeatedly fail to comply with 

discovery requests. See id.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion 1

Because BP accuses the three Motion 1 Defendants of the most extensive discovery 

misconduct of the three groups, the case for dispositive sanctions against them is the 

strongest. 

The first two factors—public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. This case has 

been pending for nearly four years. The Motion 1 Defendants’ refusal to comply with 

discovery orders and failure to attend depositions has repeatedly prevented this action from

moving forward. After all this time, BP has not been able, despite repeated attempts, to 

conduct meaningful fact discovery with regard to the Motion 1 Defendants. 

The third factor, the risk of prejudice, also weighs in favor of dismissal and default. 

BP has tried repeatedly to conduct discovery in this case, but the delays have cost BP much 

time and money. All the while, the evidence that would provide the foundation of this case 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 18
- 12 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

grows more and more stale. The Ninth Circuit in Malone described prejudice as the 

impairment of “the defendant’s ability to go to trial” or interference “with the rightful 

decision of the case.” 833 F.2d at 131. The Motion 1 Defendants’ conduct has thus far

significantly impaired BP’s ability to go to trial or file dispositive motions. Therefore, the 

Motion 1 Defendants’ conduct has prejudiced BP, weighing in favor of default and 

dismissal. 

The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 

weighs against BP. But by its nature, this factor as phrased will always weigh against 

dismissal or default. In Malone, the court clarified that when the other factors weigh in 

favor of dismissal, the “merits” factor does not “outweigh the other four factors.” Malone, 

833 F.2d at 133 n.2. In any event, the Motion 1 Defendants’ conduct in this case gives the 

impression that these Defendants may never cooperate sufficiently to allow discovery of 

facts that could lead to a decision on the merits. Thus, although decisions on the merits are 

favored, this factor would not on its own outweigh the other four if they tilted in favor of 

default and dismissal. 

Finally, the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic alternatives, in this case augers 

against BP. The Malone court added a sub-factor test for the “less drastic alternatives” 

factor,9 noting that, when reviewing district courts’ issuance of dispositive sanctions, the 

court of appeals will examine whether the district court (1) “explicitly discuss[ed] the 

feasibility of less drastic sanctions and explain[ed] why alternative sanctions would be 

inadequate,” (2) implemented other less drastic sanctions before ordering dismissal, or (3) 

warned the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal before actually ordering dismissal. 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132. 

 Magistrate Judge Burkhardt issued several discovery orders—few of which were

heeded by these Defendants—and already imposed monetary sanctions. Nonetheless, the 

Motion 1 Defendants “continued to directly violate Court orders regarding deposition 

 

9 The Court recognizes that this is getting to be a lot of factors.

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 18
- 13 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

appearances and payment of monetary sanctions.” (Mot. 1, ECF No. 446-1, at 14.) The 

Motion 1 Defendants also had notice from Magistrate Judge Burkhardt that they may stand 

to answer on motions for dispositive sanctions, including default judgment. (Order, ECF 

No. 445, at 8.)

To date, monetary sanctions have not been effective. Rule 37 also gives the option 

to direct that facts be taken as established. In this case, that sort of sanction would probably 

either lead to further delay, or, depending on the extent of the fact-dispositive sanction, 

effectively end the case. Additionally, BP has not proposed these sanctions or indicated 

what facts should be taken as established. 

There is no doubt that, like the litigant in Virtual Vision, the Motion 1 Defendants 

had the ability to attend their depositions and comply with the Court’s discovery orders. 

Their failure to do so, therefore, amounts to the sort of willfulness and bad faith for which 

the Ninth Circuit has encouraged the sanction of default or dismissal under Rule 37. 

Sigliano, 642 F.2d at 310. Nonetheless, with regard to dispositive sanctions, the Court is 

inclined to give the Motion 1 Defendants one last chance. 

First, although Magistrate Judge Burkhardt in her July 24, 2015, Order indicated that

motions for dispositive sanctions should be raised with this Court, and therefore gave the 

Motion 1 Defendants some notice of the possibility of dispositive sanctions, that notice is 

less explicit and directive than that provided to the litigants in Sigliano and Virtual Vision. 

In both of those cases, the court that would ultimately rule on the motion for dispositive 

sanctions gave the litigants notice that failure to participate in discovery or comply with 

orders would result in entry of dismissal or default. See Virtual Vision, 124 F.3d at 1142; 

Sigliano, 642 F.2d at 309–10; but see Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 

1056–57 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[E]veryone has notice from the text of Rule 37(b)(2) that 

dismissal is a possible sanction for failure to obey discovery orders.”). The notice here was 

less explicit. Although Magistrate Judge Burkhardt provided the Motion 1 Defendants 

some notice, this Court has not explicitly warned these Defendants that failure to comply 

will result in default and dismissal. However, the Court hereby GIVES NOTICE to the 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 18
- 14 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

Motion 1 Defendants that further failure to comply with discovery orders or to 

meaningfully participate in discovery, even absent an order to compel, SHALL result in 

entry of default judgment against them and dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to 

Rule 37(b). 

Second, the severity of the remedy BP seeks for these discovery violations weighs 

in favor of giving the Motion 1 Defendants another chance before ending the case against 

them. It seems more severe to enter a default judgment against a defendant and to grant 

dismissal of counter claims, as would be the case here, than it does to dismiss a plaintiff’s 

case where the plaintiff—who initiated the action in the first place—is not participating 

appropriately in the action. See, e.g., Sigliano, 642 F.2d at 309–10.

Third, although the Court does not now grant the full extent of relief BP seeks, the 

conduct complained of is not going unpunished. The Court is not confident that monetary 

sanctions will be effective here, or that they will ultimately be paid, but that remains to be 

seen. BP requests an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs “incurred in litigating claims 

against” the Motion 1 Defendants. (Mot. 1, ECF No. 446-1, at 17.) The Court is inclined 

to grant somewhat narrower relief. BP is entitled to be reimbursed by the Motion 1 

Defendants—that is, Southland Petroleum, MK Oil, and Pacific Expotech—for fees and 

costs attributable to the discovery violations BP identifies and in litigating this Motion, but 

not for litigation of all claims against them. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE BP’s motion for 

dispositive sanctions against the Motion 1 Defendants and GRANTS IN PART AND 

DENIES IN PART BP’s motion for monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). 

Southland Petroleum, MK Oil, and Pacific Expotech SHALL reimburse BP for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs associated with litigating Motion 1 and the Motion 1 Defendants’

missed depositions and noncompliance with discovery orders. BP SHALL FILE invoices 

and supporting affidavits detailing time spent and costs incurred litigating Motion 1, for 

which the Motion 1 Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable, as well as invoices and 

supporting affidavits for expenses associated with the Motion 1 Defendants’ discovery 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 18
- 15 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

misconduct. With regard to discovery misconduct, each Motion 1 Defendant is liable to 

BP only for the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with its own conduct. BP should, 

therefore, identify with particularity the fees and costs attributable to each Defendant for 

discovery matters. 

II. Motion 2

As with the Motion 1 Defendants, the first two factors weigh against the Motion 2 

Defendants. As BP points out, the Motion 2 Defendants violated the case management 

order, the federal rules regarding depositions, discovery orders, and orders to meet and 

confer regarding non-appearances and discovery failures. This conduct significantly 

impedes the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s docket 

management. 

Likewise, the prejudice factor favors BP, because the Motion 2 Defendants’ conduct 

has hampered BP’s ability to go to trial or move toward a decision in this case. BP cannot 

prosecute and defend its claims without adequate written discovery and opportunities to 

depose these six Defendants. The Motion 2 Defendants’ conduct has also prejudiced BP 

by increasing the time and cost associated with this litigation. 

Again, the factor favoring resolution on the merits weighs against dispositive 

sanctions, but as before, it should not overshadow the other four factors where they 

otherwise weigh in favor of case-dispositive sanctions. 

Finally, as with the Motion 1 Defendants, the less drastic alternatives factor tilts 

against granting dispositive sanctions at this point. However, the Court hereby GIVES 

NOTICE to the Motion 2 Defendants that further failure to comply with discovery orders 

or to meaningfully participate in discovery, even absent an order to compel, SHALL result 

in entry of default judgment against them and dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to 

Rule 37(b). Further, BP is entitled to reimbursement by the Motion 2 Defendants—that is, 

Chase Products, David Parker, Parshotam Kamboj, Cal Coast, Vasaya Oil, and Sharina 

Alloush—for fees and costs attributable to litigating Motion 2 and the discovery violations 

BP identifies. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 18
- 16 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE BP’s motion for 

dispositive sanctions against the Motion 2 Defendants and GRANTS IN PART AND 

DENIES IN PART BP’s motion for monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). 

Chase Products, David Parker, Parshotam Kamboj, Cal Coast, Vasaya Oil, and Sharina 

Alloush SHALL reimburse BP for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 

litigating Motion 2 and the Motion 2 Defendants’ missed depositions and other instances 

of noncompliance with discovery orders. BP SHALL FILE invoices and supporting 

affidavits detailing time spent and costs incurred litigating Motion 2, for which the Motion 

2 Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable, as well as invoices and supporting 

affidavits for expenses associated with the Motion 2 Defendants’ discovery misconduct. 

With regard to discovery misconduct, each Motion 2 Defendant is liable to BP only for the 

attorneys’ fees and costs associated with its own conduct. BP should, therefore, identify 

with particularity the fees and costs attributable to each Defendant for discovery matters. 

III. Motion 3

BP in Motion 3 seeks default, dismissal, and monetary sanctions against all 116 

Defendants believed to be represented by attorney David Schiller. Although these 

Defendants have not been very cooperative in the discovery process, it would be an overly 

severe sanction to impose default and dismissal against all 116 because each has violated—

to varying degrees—at least two discovery orders. 

The Defendants’ misconduct here, taken as a whole, is not as flagrant as in the other 

two motions, and is probably attributable largely to their attorney’s lack of organization in 

this case. Of course, an attorney’s sub-par performance does not give litigants a free pass, 

but in the interest of justice, considering all of the circumstances, dispositive sanctions 

against all 116 Motion 3 Defendants is simply too drastic. Nonetheless, future failure to 

comply with discovery obligations and orders may warrant entry of dispositive sanctions. 

The Court hereby GIVES NOTICE to the Motion 3 Defendants that further failure to 

comply with discovery orders or to meaningfully participate in discovery, even absent an 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 18
- 17 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

order to compel, may result in entry of default judgment against them and dismissal of their 

counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b). 

The Motion 3 Defendants do not escape all responsibility, however, and should be 

required to compensate BP for its reasonable fees and costs associated with litigating

Motion 3. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE BP’s motion for 

dispositive sanctions against the Motion 3 Defendants and GRANTS IN PART AND 

DENIES IN PART BP’s motion for monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). 

The Motion 3 Defendants SHALL reimburse BP for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

associated with litigating Motion 3. BP SHALL FILE invoices and supporting affidavits 

detailing time spent and costs incurred litigating Motion 3, for which the Motion 3 

Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable. Some of the Motion 3 Defendants are the 

subjects of Motion 1 and Motion 2. Those Defendants’ liability for monetary sanctions 

with respect to those motions is independent of and in addition to their liability with respect 

to Motion 3. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all of 

BP’s motions for dispositive sanctions and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

all of BP’s motions for monetary sanctions. Specifically:

1. The Defendants who are the subject of Motion 1, (ECF No. 446), SHALL

reimburse BP for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 

litigating Motion 1 and the Motion 1 Defendants’ missed depositions and 

noncompliance with discovery orders. The Motion 1 Defendants are jointly 

and severally liable for the fees and costs of litigating Motion 1 and 

individually liable for the fees and costs attributable to their discovery 

misconduct. 

2. The Defendants who are the subject of Motion 2, (ECF No. 447), SHALL

reimburse BP for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 18
- 18 -

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

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

litigating Motion 2 and the Motion 2 Defendants’ missed depositions and 

noncompliance with discovery orders. The Motion 2 Defendants are jointly 

and severally liable for the fees and costs of litigating Motion 2 and 

individually liable for the fees and costs attributable to their discovery 

misconduct. 

3. The Defendants who are the subject of Motion 3, (ECF No. 448) SHALL

reimburse BP for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with 

litigating Motion 3. The Motion 3 Defendants are jointly and severally liable 

for the fees and costs of litigating Motion 3. 

4. BP SHALL submit supporting documentation, including invoices and 

affidavits, regarding the specific amounts owed pursuant to the sanctions

ordered herein on or before January 15, 2016. Defendants SHALL FILE

their objections, if any, to BP’s invoices and affidavits on or before January

29, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 478 Filed 12/14/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 18