Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01936/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rebecca L. Perkins-Post, and )

Ronald J. Post, husband and )

wife, ) No. CIV 04-1936 PHX RCB

)

Plaintiffs, )

) O R D E R

vs. )

 )

Primesouth, Inc., a South )

Carolina Corporation; SCANA )

Corporation, a South Carolina )

Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

) )

Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Sanctions

(doc. # 29) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) in

connection with Plaintiff Rebecca Perkins-Post's failure to appear

at her continuing deposition, and Defendants' request for leave to

depose Ronald Post, which was raised for the first time in

Defendants' reply (doc. # 32) in support of the same motion. 

Defendants raised this issue in their reply brief, based on new

information in Plaintiff's response (doc. # 31) that Mr. Post, 

Case 3:04-cv-01936-RCB Document 36 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 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

1

 See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996)

(holding that where a party introduces new evidence in its reply

brief, the district court should not consider the new evidence

without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond); cf. Corson

& Gruman Co. v. NLRB, 899 F.2d 47, 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (requiring

moving party to raise all arguments in its opening brief to prevent

"sandbagging" of opposing party).

2

 The Court has already ruled on those portions of Defendants'

motion seeking to compel Plaintiff's appearance at a future date to

continue her deposition, and to extend certain deadlines set by the

scheduling order. Minute Entry (doc. # 33); Order (doc. # 35). The

portion of Defendants' motion seeking reasonable expenses in

connection with Plaintiff's failure to appear at her continuing

deposition remains under advisement, and the Court will issue a

separate order addressing that issue at a later time.

- 2 -

whose claims were recently dismissed, apparently shredded certain

Primesouth documents that were to be the subject of inquiry at Mrs.

Post's continuing deposition. Reply (doc. # 32) at 9-10; see also

Joint Mot. for Am. Scheduling Order (doc. # 27) at 2:4-7. After a

telephonic hearing held on November 17, 2005, the Court allowed

Plaintiff to file a sur-reply addressing Defendant's request to

depose Mr. Post.1 Minute Entry (doc. # 33); Order (doc. # 35).

The matter has now been fully briefed (doc. ## 29, 31-32, 34). 

Having carefully considered the arguments raised, the Court now

rules with respect to Defendants' request to depose Mr. Post.2

I. DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE RONALD J. POST

On June 28, 2005, the Court issued an amended scheduling order

in this case (doc. # 20) pursuant to which the discovery deadline

for depositions was extended through August 22, 2005, and all 

dispositive motions were required to be filed by October 3, 2005. 

Thereafter, Defendants noticed the depositions of Plaintiffs

Rebecca Perkins-Post and Ronald Post to be held on August 3. 

Notice of Dep. of Rebecca L. Perkins-Post (doc. # 21); Notice of

Case 3:04-cv-01936-RCB Document 36 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Dep. of Ronald J. Post (doc. # 22). Upon learning that Plaintiffs'

counsel had been unable to confirm Plaintiffs' ability to appear on

the scheduled date, Defendants' counsel agreed to postpone the

depositions. Mot. (doc. # 29) at 3.

Mr. Post subsequently decided to dismiss his claims, because

he apparently perceived the travel costs required to pursue the

matter as being too great relative to the small portion of the case

represented by his claim. See Sur-reply (doc. # 34) at 2. The

parties' stipulation to dismiss all of his claims with prejudice

(doc. # 24) was granted by the Court on August 24 (doc. # 25),

leaving only the claims of Mrs. Post. 

Ultimately, Mrs. Post's deposition was rescheduled to begin on

August 20. Mot. (doc. # 29) at 2; Response (doc. # 31) at 1-2. At

the conclusion of the August 20 session, the parties reached a

mutual understanding that more time would be required to complete

her deposition. Mot. (doc. # 29), Ex. E at 256:15-258:2. 

Thereafter, with leave of the Court and appropriate extension of

deadlines under the scheduling order, Defendants noticed the

continuing deposition of Mrs. Post to reconvene at the Phoenix

offices of Defendants' counsel on September 21 and 22 at 9:00 a.m.

(doc. ## 26-28). Once again, Plaintiff did not appear at the

scheduled time for her deposition. Mot. (doc. # 29), Ex. F at 1-7. 

Following the parties' unsuccessful out-of-court efforts to confer

and resolve the issues raised by Plaintiff's nonappearance,

Defendants filed the present motion for sanctions (doc. # 29) on

October 11. See id. at 6-7, Ex. G, and Ex. H.

Plaintiff's counsel originally explained that Mrs. Post had

been unable to make travel arrangements to appear on September 21

Case 3:04-cv-01936-RCB Document 36 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

and 22. Mot. (doc. # 29) at 3-4. However, Plaintiff has since

stated that she merely "does not wish to travel again." See

Response (doc. # 31) at 4. She claims that in the intervening time

since her deposition was recessed on August 20, her husband who was

formerly a party to this action destroyed the Primesouth documents

that were to be the subject of inquiry at her continued deposition,

apparently believing his act obviates the need for further

questioning. Id. 

In light of these disturbing developments, it is easily

conceived why Defendants would seek to depose Mr. Post. However,

Plaintiff now argues that "the relevance and materiality of when,

whether and why Mr. Post shredded the documents is marginal at

best." Sur-reply (doc. # 34) at 2. In addition, she claims that

she was previously instructed by her supervisor to take the

documents home and shred them, believing, perhaps, that this

earlier instruction would excuse the destruction of documents

during the pendency of this case. See id. Finally, it seems that

in the fallout of what may have been a less than amicable

separation, Mrs. Post states that she no longer knows the

whereabouts of Mr. Post. See id.

The Court does not agree with Plaintiff's assertion that, in

the discovery phase of litigation, the relevance and materiality of

Mr. Post's destruction of documents is only "marginal at best." 

The fact that Plaintiff had at one time assented to two days of

additional questioning concerning those documents belies her claim. 

In view of these recent revelations, and for good cause shown

pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Court grants Defendants' request for leave to depose Ronald Post.

Case 3:04-cv-01936-RCB Document 36 Filed 12/08/05 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' request for leave to depose

Ronald Post is GRANTED. Defendants shall notice the deposition of

Ronald Post as a non-party witness in the district of his

residence, wherever that may be, to occur at any reasonable time

established by Defendants, but in any event to occur no later than

January 12, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED modifying the Court's November 28, 2005

order (doc. # 35) so that Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's

appearance is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for up to an

additional twelve (12) hours of deposition at any reasonable time

established by Defendants, but no later than January 12, 2006. If

Plaintiff does not appear for her deposition, her case will be

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's September 30, 2005

scheduling order (doc. # 28) is amended so that the deadlines for

completion of the depositions of Ronald Post and Plaintiff Rebecca

Perkins-Post are extended to January 12, 2006.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 3:04-cv-01936-RCB Document 36 Filed 12/08/05 Page 5 of 5