Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00946/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00946-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

Jonathan Michael Ploof, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00946-PHX-DGC (JZB)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff. 

(Doc. 144.) Defendants also request the Court extend the discovery deadline by 60 days 

from the date of this Order. (Doc. 165.) For the reasons below, the Court will deny 

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and grant their Motion for an Extension of the 

Discovery Deadline. 

I. Background 

On September 15, 2014, Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for September 

30, 2014. (Doc. 118.) During the September 30, 2014 deposition, Plaintiff stated that he 

could not respond to many of the questions without referring to his notes. But, but when 

Defendants afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to retrieve his notes, he chose not to do so. 

Plaintiff failed to provide meaningful responses to many of the questions Defendants’ 

counsel asked him. The parties contacted the Court during the deposition to address 

Plaintiff’s responses; however Magistrate Judge Burns was not available at that time. 

On September 30, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for an enlargement of the 

deposition deadline, and to compel Plaintiff to participate in the deposition in good faith. 

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

(Doc. 122.) On October 2, 2014, the Court granted the Motions. (Doc. 125.) In its 

October 2, 2014 Order, the Court specifically advised Plaintiff that he “must attend the 

deposition in good faith and with all materials necessary to provide meaningful responses 

to questions regarding his healthcare prior to and during his incarceration with the ADC, 

and his contact and interactions with the Defendants.” 

On October 2, 2014, after receiving the Court’s Order, Defendants filed an 

Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition, noticing Plaintiff’s deposition for 

October 10, 2014. (Doc. 129.) On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the 

Amended Notice of Deposition. (Doc. 131.) On October 8, 2014, Defendants filed a 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, along with a Motion for 

Expedited Ruling. (Doc. 135; Doc. 136.) On October 8, 2014, the Court denied 

Plaintiff’s Motion Strike the Amended Deposition Notice. (Doc. 137.) 

On October 10, 2014, the day of Plaintiff’s rescheduled deposition, Plaintiff failed 

to appear and participate in the deposition. Correctional Office (“CO”) III Ridnour 

testified that when he went to retrieve Plaintiff for his deposition, Plaintiff stated that he 

was not given 24-hour notice and, therefore, he was not ready. (Doc. 144, Ex. 1 at 3:10-

4:8.) On October 23, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion for Sanctions, arguing that 

Plaintiff’s repeated failure to participate in his deposition in good faith warrants sanctions 

under Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, 

Defendants request the Court dismiss this action and require Plaintiff to pay the 

reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the September 30, 2014 and October 10, 

2014 depositions, including attorneys’ fees and court reporter costs. (Doc. 144.) 

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 145), in which he argues that sanctions are not appropriate 

because: (1) he did not receive the Court’s Order denying his Motion to Strike until 

October 14, 2014, after the deposition; (2) when Plaintiff questioned CO Ridnour on 

October 9, 2014 on whether he had a deposition the following day, CO Ridnour told him 

“you have no legal calls,” and (3) on October 10, 2014, CO Ridnour told him only that 

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

“someone wanted to talk with me and he requested that person to call back Monday.” 

Defendants filed their Reply on November 11, 2014, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to 

provide any justification for his failure to participate in his deposition, and he is 

intentionally seeking to delay these proceedings. (Doc. 151.) 

II. Analysis 

Rule 37(d)(1)(A) provides that the Court may order sanctions if “a party . . . fails, 

after being served with a proper notice, to appear for that person’s deposition.” Rule 37 

(d)(3) further states that “[s]anctions may include any of the orders listed in Rule 

37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vi). Instead of or in addition to these sanctions, the court must require 

the party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both 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.” 

Sanctions available under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) include the following: 

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other 

designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; 

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; 

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; 

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; 

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; 

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient 

party; or 

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a 

dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule . . . operates as 

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

an adjudication on the merits.” 

 Here, the transcript of Plaintiff’s September 30, 2014 deposition establishes that 

Plaintiff failed to provide meaningful responses to several of Defendants’ counsel’s 

questions. Further, Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition on October 10, 2014, 

even though Defendants provided Plaintiff with notice of the date and time of the 

deposition and the Court ordered Plaintiff to “attend the deposition in good faith and with 

all materials necessary to provide meaningful response to questions regarding his 

healthcare prior to and during his incarceration with the ADC, and his contact and 

interaction with Defendants.” Plaintiff claims that he did not receive the Court’s Order 

denying his Motion to Strike the Amended Notice until after his October 10, 2014 

deposition; however, even if true, that does not excuse his failure to appear. And, 

although Plaintiff claims that CO Ridnour did not inform him of his deposition, CO 

Ridnour testified that he told Plaintiff Defendants’ counsel was on the phone for his 

deposition, but Plaintiff refused to participate in the deposition because Plaintiff was not 

ready. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with his discovery 

obligations and the Court’s October 2, 2014 Order by failing to appear for his deposition. 

 The Court has wide discretion in imposing discovery sanctions. See Ollier v. 

Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 859 (9th Cir. 2014). However, 

“[w]here the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are imposed . . . the losing party’s 

noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault, or bad faith.” Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 

F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997); United States for Use of Wiltec Guam v. Kahaluu Constr., 

857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988) (the sanction of dismissal is authorized only in extreme 

circumstances and dismissal is warranted only if the violation is due to willfulness, bad 

faith, or fault of the party). Further, “[b]ecause the sanction of dismissal is such a harsh 

penalty, the district court must weigh five factors before imposing dismissal: ‘(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 party seeking sanctions]; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

sanctions.’” Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Wanderer v. 

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 655-56 (9th Cir. 1990)). “The first two of these factors favor the 

imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or 

dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser 

sanctions.” Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656. 

The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's failure to 

participate in his deposition in good faith and subsequent failure to appear for his 

properly noticed deposition have caused delay in this case and limited Defendants’ ability 

to defend themselves against his allegations. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against 

dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative 

is available. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that warning a party “his failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in the dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 

requirement.” See e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone 

v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that a 

warning is an alternative sanction, and that case law suggests that warning a plaintiff that 

failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice). 

Based on the record here, the Court declines to impose the drastic sanction of 

dismissal. The Court further declines at this time to require Plaintiff to pay the reasonable 

fees and costs associated with his two depositions. However, while the Court declines to 

impose the sanctions Defendants request, it warns Plaintiff that if he does not appear for 

and participate in good faith in his deposition once rescheduled and properly noticed, he 

may be subject to sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action. The Court 

reiterates that Defendants are entitled to question Plaintiff regarding his allegations, 

including questions regarding his healthcare prior to and during his incarceration with the 

ADC, and his contact and interaction with Defendants. 

In light of Plaintiff’s conduct, Defendants seek an extension of the discovery 

deadline of 60 days from the date of this Order. (Doc. 165.) The Court will grant 

Defendants’ request. Accordingly, 

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 6
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 144) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must appear for and participate in 

good faith in his deposition once rescheduled and properly noticed, as required by the 

Court’s October 2, 2014 Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for an Enlargement of the 

Discovery Deadline (Doc. 165) is granted. The parties shall have until February 9, 2015

to complete discovery. 

 Dated this 10th day of December, 2014. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00946-DGC Document 175 Filed 12/10/14 Page 6 of 6