Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00289/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00289-2/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 

WO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ARAYA WOLDE-GIORGIS, and his family 

members, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

MR. BRADBURY H. ANDERSON, MR. 

JUSTIN GUY, BEST BUY CO. OF 

MINNESOTA, INC., ILLINOIS NATIONAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN 

INTERNATIONAL GROUP (AIG), MR. 

ALEX DILLARD, MR. DAN JENSEN, and 

DILLARD’S, INC., 

 Defendants. 

No. CV 06-289-PHX-MHM 

ORDER 

On March 1, 2007, and upon proper notice to the parties, the Court held a Status 

Conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant 

Dillard’s, Inc.’s Request for Rule 16 Status Conference (Doc. 70). The docket in this 

case shows several pending motions filed by the parties, including Defendants Dillard’s, 

Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Obligations 

and the Court’s Orders (Doc. 68), Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Request to Enlarge 

Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 71), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 76). 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

Defendants Dillard’s, Inc., Deirdre Andrews and Dan Jensen appeared through 

counsel, Lynn S. McCreary and Caroline Larsen of Bryan Cave, LLP. Plaintiff Araya 

Wolde-Giorgis failed to appear. The Court heard argument on Dillard’s pending Motion 

for Sanctions, and for the reasons stated on the record and further set forth below, the 

Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s 

Failure to Comply with Discovery Obligations and the Court’s Orders, dismissing 

Plaintiff’s case against all defendants, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute his claims pursuant Rules 26 and 37, 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Plaintiff Has Consistently Failed and Refused to Participate in Discovery. 

 Plaintiff has steadfastly refused to meaningfully participate in any phase of 

discovery in this action. His ongoing efforts to avoid his discovery obligations have 

thwarted Defendants’ efforts to defend this case and have wasted judicial resources. 

1. Plaintiff Ignored His Rule 26 Obligations. 

 As an initial matter, Plaintiff failed to timely serve his initial disclosure statement 

as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) or the deadline set in the Court’s 

Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 33), which directed the parties to exchange initial 

disclosures no later than June 16, 2006. On June 23, 2006 and again on July 14, 2006, 

Dillard’s corresponded with Plaintiff, noting the delinquent initial Rule 26(a)(1) 

disclosure and requesting immediate response. Dillard’s July 14, 2006 correspondence 

alerted Plaintiff to his failure to respond to discovery requests that had been properly 

served by Dillard’s pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34. Plaintiff ignored Dillard’s 

correspondence, and never requested any extension or otherwise communicated with 

Dillard’s or the Court regarding his failure to fulfill his obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26, 33 or 34. 

 On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff finally served his initial disclosure statement, along 

with his responses to Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents, First Set of 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

Interrogatories and Proposed Protective Order. Plaintiff’s disclosure statement and 

responses were wholly deficient and failed to comply with either the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure or the Court’s Order. 

2. Plaintiff Ignored His Obligation To Respond To Written Discovery. 

 Dillard’s properly served Requests for Production of Documents and NonUniform Interrogatories on Plaintiff on May 24, 2006. As described in Section I.A.1, 

supra, Plaintiff failed to respond. Furthermore, Plaintiff ignored Dillard’s 

correspondence seeking his responses to said discovery. On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff 

finally served his responses to Dillard’s discovery requests. In contravention of the 

Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Dillard’s discovery, Plaintiff failed to 

provide any substantive responses to Dillard’s written discovery requests. Defendants’ 

First Request for Production of Documents included nineteen individual requests. 

Plaintiff lodged some form of objection to each request, including objections that the 

requests were vague, not specific, overly broad, irrelevant, and/or inconsistent with the 

rules of discovery. As to several requests, Plaintiff stated that he “objects to such request 

on other grounds as well,” but did not specify the grounds. Plaintiff did not produce a 

single document with his response. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ First Request 

for Production of Documents, attached as Exhibit B to Defendants Dillard’s, Inc.’s 

Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 68). 

 In response to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiff provided his full 

name, social security number and date of birth. He refused to identify the other 

previously named “family members” who were supposedly plaintiffs in this action, 

stating that he is the only party in the Amended Complaint. He otherwise objected to 

every other interrogatory on the grounds that the requests were irrelevant, overly broad, 

vague, and/or inconsistent with the rules of discovery or that Plaintiff could not waive the 

privacy rights of other individuals. He failed to identify the witnesses he intends to call in 

this case, vaguely stating that “lists of witnesses will be provided to defendants in the 

future.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

3. Plaintiff Failed to Appear at His Properly Noticed Deposition. 

On September 21, 2006, Dillard’s properly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition, which 

was scheduled for October 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of Bryan Cave LLP. 

(Doc. 57) There is no evidence that Plaintiff ever contacted counsel for Dillard’s to 

indicate that he had a scheduling conflict or otherwise could not attend the deposition at 

the designated date and time. Lead counsel for Dillard’s traveled to Phoenix, Arizona 

from Kansas City, Missouri and was prepared to begin the deposition on the morning of 

October 6. A court reporter and videographer were prepared to record the Plaintiff’s 

deposition, as set forth in the notice properly served upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to 

appear for his deposition, nor did he call to alert counsel to his inability to appear. A 

record of non-appearance was made at 9:34 a.m. 

B. Plaintiff Has Repeatedly Ignored the Court’s Orders With respect To 

Amending His Complaint. 

 Plaintiff has repeatedly ignored this Court’s Orders commanding him to amend his 

Complaint to exclude the claims and parties that are futile. Plaintiff’s proposed Amended 

Complaints, filed on October 17, 2006 and January 18, 2007, contain the same improper 

parties and untenable claims for relief as Plaintiffs’ earlier Complaints, without regard for 

the Court’s September 22, 2006 Order. (See Doc. 58, 63 and 74) Plaintiff has repeatedly 

ignored the Court’s Order dismissing defendants Alex Dillard and William Dillard for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. He further disregarded the Court’s dismissal of all of 

Plaintiff’s claims for relief, except as based on an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

 The Court’s directive to Plaintiff was clear: 

The Court now reiterates to Plaintiff that in its September 22, 2006 Order 

(Doc. 58), the Court dismissed this case as to Defendants Alex Dillard and 

William Dillard II. The Court dismissed these Defendants for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. In the same Order, the Court also dismissed with 

prejudice Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; 

violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution, and violation of Article II, section 4, 6, and 8 of the Arizona 

Constitution. The court dismissed these claims because plaintiff has not 

sued a state actor. 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

(Doc. 66). In addition, the Court advised “Plaintiff to make the appropriate changes to 

his amended Complaint by removing dismissed Defendants and claims before filing it.” 

The Court ruled that any dismissed parties or claims included in the Amended Complaint 

would be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). 

Nonetheless, on January 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint identical

to the Amended Complaint he filed on October 17, 2006. The Amended Complaint again 

names Alex Dillard and William Dillard II as Defendants and asserts claims for relief 

based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the First, Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Arizona Constitution. Moreover, by Plaintiff’s own admission, the Amended Complaint 

includes parties whom the Court has legally dismissed, which he refuses to remove based 

on his stated intention to seek an appeal of their dismissal at a later date (Doc. 75). 

Plaintiff offers no explanation for continuing to list the claims for relief that the Court has 

dismissed with prejudice. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY AND TO 

OTHERWISE PROSECUTE HIS CLAIMS WARRANTS DISMISSAL OF 

THE ACTION. 

 Plaintiff’s failure to adequately respond to Dillard’s written discovery requests or 

to appear for his deposition violates Rule 37(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 

Rules permit the imposition of sanctions for the use evasive discovery tactics. 

“If a party.....fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take the 

deposition, after being served with proper notice, (2) to serve answers or 

objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service 

of the interrogatories, or (3) to serve written response to a request for 

inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the request, the 

court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in 

regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action 

authorized under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of 

this rule.” 

 Sanctions for a party’s failure to obey an order to provide or permit discovery may 

include “[a]n order . . . dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(C). 

 Plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to Dillard’s written discovery 

requests or to serve his initial disclosure statement, in breach of both the Court’s Order, 

(Doc. 58), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). In addition, the Court has been 

provided evidence that Plaintiff has been wholly unresponsive to efforts by counsel for 

Dillard’s to resolve the inadequacies of his discovery responses without court 

involvement. Plaintiff’s refusal to provide any substantive responses to Dillard’s written 

interrogatories and requests for production, compounded with his failure attend his 

deposition, and failure to appear at the March 1, 2007 status conference warrants severe 

sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) and (d). 

 This Court previously put Plaintiff on notice that his continued refusal to 

participate in discovery could result in dismissal of this action. The Court’s September 

29, 2006 Order specifically advised: 

Plaintiffs shall have fourteen days from the filing date of this Order in 

which to respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests, to serve 

Plaintiffs’ initial disclosure documents and information, and in which to 

respond to Defendants’ proposed protective order. Plaintiffs are 

warned that any failure to cooperate with discovery in this case may 

result in sanctions, including the exclusion of proposed 

evidence and/or dismissal of this case. 

(Doc. 58) (emphasis added). 

 “Dismissal is a proper sanction under Rule 37(d) for a serious or total failure to 

respond to discovery even without a prior order.” Sigliano v. Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 

310 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal is specifically encouraged whether the court determines 

that a party “has acted willfully or in bad faith in failing to comply with rules of 

discovery or with court orders enforcing the rules or in flagrant disregard of those rules or 

orders.” Id. (quoting G-K Props. v. Redevelopment Agency, 577 F.2d 645, 647 (9th Cir. 

1978)). 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

Litigants who are willful in halting the discovery process act in opposition 

to the authority of the court and cause impermissible prejudice to their 

opponents. It is even more important to note, in this era of crowded dockets, 

that they also deprive other litigants of an opportunity to use the courts as a 

serious dispute-settlement mechanism. 

G-K Props., 577 F.2d 645 at 647. 

 The court evaluates five factors in considering whether a dismissal of default is 

appropriate as a Rule 37 sanction. Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 

1990). They are: “(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.” Id. (citing Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)). The key factors in 

this consideration are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions. Id. 

 Plaintiff has failed to cooperate in basic discovery. The discovery cutoff date 

passed on December 1, 2006, at which time Plaintiff had failed to identify any witnesses 

who would support his claims or provide testimony regarding his alleged damages. 

Plaintiff’s actions, or inaction, have prevented this case from progressing at all, even 

though it has been pending since August 2005, putting a significant burden on the Court’s 

docket and frustrating the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation. 

Moreover, Defendants have been unduly and severely prejudiced by Plaintiff’s complete 

failure to meet his discovery obligations in this case. 

 Finally, considering this Plaintiff’s history, no lesser sanction exists. Despite 

Plaintiff’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as repeated 

specific Court Orders, Plaintiff failed to provide his initial disclosure statement, refused 

to provide substantive responses to discovery requests, did not appear for his properlynoticed deposition, failed to even file a Complaint that limits the Defendants to those 

subject to this Court’s jurisdiction and asserts viable claims, and did not appear for the 

March 1, 2007 status conference before this Court. It appears Plaintiff has no intention of 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 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 

prosecuting his action. As a result, this action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s wholesale 

disregard for the Court’s Orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of 

this Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Motion for a Rule 16 Status 

Conference (Doc. 70) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Motion for 

Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Obligations (Doc. 68) is 

granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 65) is granted. This action is dismissed in its 

entirety with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions are moot in light of the 

Court’s order of dismissal: Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Request to Enlarge Dispositive 

Motion Deadline (Doc. 71), Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct his Complaint (Doc. 

73), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 76). 

 Dated this 6th day of March, 2007. 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 82 Filed 03/08/07 Page 8 of 8