VENACI O AGUA SANTA ARI AS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. DYNCORP, et al., Def endants. UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COL UMBI A

Civil Action No. 01-1908 RW R/DAR (consolidated w ith Ci vil Action No. 07-1042 for

discovery

and ca se manag ement purpose s)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION AND ORDER

Def endants’ Motion for

Sanctions Ag ainst the Arias/Quinteros Plaintiffs for Violations of Discover y Orde rs (“ Motion for Sanctions”) ( Document No. 176) is pending for de termination by the under signe d. Upon consider ation of the motion; Pl aintiffs’ Opposition to Defe ndants’ 1 Motion for Sanctions Ag ainst the Arias/Quinteros Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs’ Opposition”) (Doc ument No. 185); De fenda nts’ Reply

Br ief in Support of Motion for Sanctions Ag ainst the Arias/Quinteros Plaintiffs for Violations of Discove ry Orde rs (“ Def

endants’ Re ply ”) ( Document No. 186); De fenda

nts’ Supplemental Memorandum of L aw in Support of The ir J anuar y 26, 2010 Motion for Sanctions Ag ainst the Arias/Quinteros Plaintiffs for Their Violations of Discover

y Orde rs (“ Def

endants’ Supplementa l Memorandum”) (Doc ument No. 190); Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Br ief in Support of Their Opposition to Defenda

nts’ Motion for Sanctions Ag ainst

Aria s, et a l. v. DynCorp , et a l. (Civil Ac tion No. 01 -19 08 ) and Quin teros, et a l. v. DynCorp , et a l. (Civil A ction No. 1 07 -10 42 ) are conso lidated for case m anage m ent and di scovery . The d ocume nt nu m bers cited h erein correspo nd to th e ECF entries in Arias.Arias, e t al. v. Dy nCorp., et al. 2 the Arias/Quinteros Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memora ndum”) (D ocument No. 191) , and the e ntire re cord he rein, the motion will be denied.

BACK GR OUND Plaintiffs – who now number a pproxi mately

3,200 citizens of the Republic of Ec uador – seek mone tary

and injunctive re lief for

persona l injuries and prope rty damag es alleg edly

cause d by the ac tions of Defe ndants with respe ct to their contra ct with the United States to spray pesticides over

coca ine and he roin crops in the Republic of Columbi a. See ge nerally First Amended Consolidated Complaint (Docume nt No. 23). 2 A detailed a ccount of

the cour se of discove ry

which provide s the context in which the instant dispute arises appe ars in Arias v. DynCorp Aerospac e Ope rations, L LC, 677 F. Supp. 2d 330 (D.D.C. 2010). O f immediate re levanc e is the dete rmination of the cour t, during the manag ement of discove ry , to require that the individual Plainti ffs c omplete questionnaire s reg arding the “f

actua l basis of their cla ims”. Id. at 332-33. The c ourt there afte r re quired that 20 3

so-ca lled “test Plaintiffs” be ma de ava ilable to be depose d by Def endants. I n the pending motion for sanctions, Def endants re prese nt that in October a nd November , 2009, they

took the depositions of the 20 test Plaintiffs, and that during the depositions, “ea ch of the test [P ]l aintiffs re peate dly depar ted from their

[si c] earlier

sworn Que stionnaire re sponses reg arding the purporte d fac tual bases f or their [sic] claims . . . and relied instead on new

The court (Ro berts, J.) granted Def endan ts’ m otio n for ju dgm ent o n t he p leadings w ith respect to t he claim s of the 2 Ecuado rian p rovinces of Sucu m bio s, Carchi and Esm eraldas (collectively , th e “provincial P laintiff s”) on the grou nd th at they lack ed stand ing to sue. Arias v. DynCorp , No . 0 7-1 04 2, 20 10 WL 37 00 27 4, at * (D.D.C. Septem ber 1 5, 20 10 ). The court (Ro berts, J.) ulti m ately di sm issed with prejud ice the P laintiff s w ho se questio nn aire respon ses w ere 3 inco m plete. Id. at 3 34

.Arias, e t al. v. Dy nCorp., et al. 3 alleg ations of different

purported e x posures a

nd damag es.” Motion for Sanc tions at 1. Def endants submit that “[t] he test [P] laintiffs’ disavowa ls of the most basic eleme nts of their prior sworn disc losures . . . make s clea r that [they ] have willfullly and re peate dly

violated Court Orde rs over

the past two y ear s in which the Court requir ed ‘ve rified, f actua l and complete’ disclosures, with the explicit warning of dismissal for noncompliance .” Id. (footnote omitted). 4 Def endants maintain that the “ unambig uous violations of the Court’s Order s” by the test Plaintiffs “requir e[s] that eac h of the test [P] laintiffs’ cla ims be dismis sed with prejudice

. Id. at 2. I n the alter

native, De fenda

nts principally

ask that if the test Plaintiffs ar e allowe d to proce ed to trial, then “they

be pre cluded f

rom offe ring any

arg ument to expl ain awa y their misconduct and that the jury

be instructed by

the Court that the [test P laintiffs] provided false a nswers unde r oath in their 2008 Que stionnaire re sponses.” Id. 5 Plaintiffs, in their oppositi on, g ener ally maintain that Def

endants ha ve fa iled to demonstrate tha t the imposit ion of any sanction – par

ticularly the har sh sanction of dismissal – is

war rante d. Plaintiffs chara cter ize any discrepa ncies be tween the test Plainti ffs’ que stionnaire response s and their de position t estimony as “minor testimonial inconsistencies,” and submit that a jury “[should be allowed] to make cre dibilit y deter minations where a

ny testimonial inconsistencies a ctually

exis t.” Plaintiffs’ Opposition at 4; see also id. at 3-16, 21-30, 36; Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum a t 2-5 (Rule 37 sanc tions “are simply not an ava ilable

Def endan ts further sub m it th at therefore neither th ey no r th e court “ca

n h ave any

con f iden ce in th e acc uracy

of the 4 Question naire respo nses of the 2 .00 1 oth er in dividu al [ P ] laintiff

s w ho rem ain .

. . in th ese ca ses.” Id. (footn ote o m itted). Def endan ts sub m it th at the claim s of the rem ainin g ind ividual P laintiff s sho uld no t b e allowe d t o p roceed u ntil such 5 P laintiff s, am on g oth er thin gs, “have pro vided me anin gf ul assurance that th ey

have pro vided accurate f actual disclo sures in their Question naire respo nses[ .] ” Id. at 3

.Arias, e t al. v. Dy nCorp., et al. 4

reme dy for a ny minor . . . inconsistencies betwe en interr og atory response s (or similar submissi ons) and de position t estimony .”). Def endants, in their r eply , submit t hat Plaintiffs have f ailed “to r ebut” De fenda

nts’ showing that the test Plaintiffs “[h] ave [k]nowingly [v] iolated [t] he Court’s [d] iscovery [o] rder s.” De fenda

nts’ Reply

at 6. More spe cifica lly , Def endants submit that “[t] he issue is whether the Court-orde red f

actua l disclosures set for

th in each individual test [Pl aintiff’s] Questionnaire response are ‘ver ified, fa ctual, and c omplete,’ a s the Court has re quired. The y are not.” Id. ; see also Def

endants’ Supplementa l Memorandum at 2 ( “the test [P] laintiffs’ own deposition testimony

reve aled mate rial misstatements and omissions in t heir 2008 Que stionnaire response s,” and tha t the misstatements and omissions “related to the same foundational facts that the Court expressly addre ssed in its discovery orde rs[.] ” ).

DISCUSSIO N Def endants re ly

entirely upon Rule 37 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure in support of their motion for sa

nctions. Whi le Def

endants g ener ally

maintain that the test Plaintiffs “[h] ave [k]nowingly

[v] iolated [t] he Court’s [d] iscovery [o] rder s[] ” (D efe ndants’ Reply at 6), the premise of

their motion remains the a ssertion that “the te st [ P] laintiffs’ own de position t estimony

reve aled mate rial misstatements and omissions in t heir 2008 Que stionnaire response s . . . which related to the same foundational facts that the Court expre ssly addressed in its discovery orde rs[.] ” Def endants’ Supplementa l Memorandum at 2. Rule 37(b)(2) (A) pr ovides for a n arr ay of sanc tions, including the dismissal of an a ction whole or in pa

rt. See generally Moore v . Chertoff, 255 F.R.D. 10, 30-32 ( D.D.C. 2008), aff’dArias, e t al. v. Dy nCorp., et al. 5 sub nom. Moore v . Napolit ano , No. 00-953, 2009 WL 2450280, at *9 (D.D .C. Aug ust 7, 2009). Howeve r, the ve ry

terms of the r

ule ca bin the court’s a

uthority to impose any

sanction pursua

nt to Rule 37(b)(2) (A) to a

n instance in whic h “a pa rty . . . fails to obey

an orde r to provide or permit discover

y [.] ” Robinson-Ree der v. Am . Council on Educ. , 262 F.R.D. 41, 43 (D .D.C. 2009); see also Azamar v. Stern , 269 F.R.D. 53, 54-55 ( D.D.C. 2010) (imposition of Rule 37 sanctions appr opriate “ beca use Stern has r epeatedly

failed to re spond to plaintiffs’ written discovery reque sts.”); Perez v . Berhanu , 583 F. Supp. 2d 87, 90 (D.D .C. 2008) (Rule 37 sanctions appr opriate “ beca use def endants re peate dly

failed to re spond to plaintiffs’ written discovery reque sts and [one defenda nt] failed to a

ppear for his deposition.”). The unde rsig ned finds that De fenda nts have fa iled to demonstrate that the te st Pl aintiffs have f ailed to obey

an orde r direc ting that they provide discove ry . Rather, De fenda nts util ize their motion for Rule 37 sanc tions as a mecha nism by which to addr ess their c oncer n that the deposition testimony

of the test Plaintiffs varie d from the que stionnaire re sponses of the test Plaintiffs. Howeve r, the unde rsig ned knows of no a uthority which supports the proposition that a court, pursua

nt to Rul e 37, ca

n make de terminations reg arding which one of two arg uably inconsistent discovery

response s is accur ate, or

otherwise a ddress the c redibility of the pa rty who

serve d the re sponses. Even we re the court to find, on the ba sis of Defe ndants’ prof fer s and ar g uments, that the test Plainti ffs -- or any

one of the m -- had w illfully violated a discove ry

order of this court, it is unlikely that dismiss al would be r eg arde d as the a ppropriate sanction. This Circuit has held that “dismissal is a sanction of last re sort to be applied only afte r less dire a lternatives have bee n explored without success or w ould obviously prove f utile.” Bonds v. District of Columbia , 93Arias, e t al. v. Dy nCorp., et al. 6 F.3d 801, 808 ( D.C. Cir. 1986) (citations and inter nal quotations omitt ed); see also He nry v. Onsa , No. 05-2406, 2008 WL 552627, at *2 (D.D .C. Feb. 27, 2008) ( citing Bonds , 93 F.3d a t 808) (“ [D] ismiss al is a seve re sa nction, and should be re stored to only to the extent necessar

y to induce f uture c ompliance a

nd prese rve the integ rity

of the sy stem[.] ”); c.f. Arias, 677 F. Supp. 2d at 332 (dismissing with pre judice the c laims of the individual Plainti ffs who f ailed to submit completer questionnaire r esponses “ [i n violation of] m ultiple ex plicit court order s, and no lesser sanction is appropr iate[.] ”).

CONCLUSION For the fore g oing r easons, it is, this 10 day of De cembe r, 2010, t h ORDERED that Def

endants’ Motion for

Sanctions Ag ainst the Arias/Quinter os Plaintiffs for Violations of Discove ry Orde rs (Doc ument No. 176) be DENIED.

/ s / D E B O R A H A

. R O B IN S O N U n i t e d S t a t e s M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e