Court Opinion

ID: 9909458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:01:30.323217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:24.809041
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1403            Document: 010110967857   Date Filed: 12/13/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       Tenth Circuit

                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       December 13, 2023
                             _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  XINGFEI LUO,

         Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                             No. 22-1403
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-02765-RMR-MEH)
  PAUL WANG,                                                      (D. Colo.)

         Defendant - Appellee.

  ------------------------------

  EUGENE VOLOKH,

         Intervenor - Appellee.
                         _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                             _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Xingfei Luo brought this action against Paul Wang asserting various

 defamation-related claims. After a magistrate judge concluded Ms. Luo

 “unreasonably refused necessary efforts to conduct discovery and prepare [the] case

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857        Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 2

 for conclusion,” R., Vol. V at 288, and disobeyed the magistrate judge’s order to

 answer questions at her deposition, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of

 the action as a sanction. After reviewing Ms. Luo’s objections, the district court

 agreed with the recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice. She

 appeals the dismissal and challenges various other orders the district court issued in

 the case. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we affirm.

                                   BACKGROUND

       1. Facts Underlying Ms. Luo’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC)

       Ms. Luo alleged that she and Mr. Wang began an intimate relationship during

 Mr. Wang’s 2012 visit to China. Mr. Wang returned to the United States and the

 couple decided to continue their relationship. In July 2013, Ms. Luo moved to the

 United States to live with Mr. Wang in Colorado.

       Ms. Luo alleged that in May 2013, while she was still in China, she was

 sexually assaulted by a man named Mr. Chen. She reported the assault to Chinese

 authorities and Mr. Chen was arrested and prosecuted. The rape charges were still

 pending when Ms. Luo traveled to the United States to live with Mr. Wang.

       At one point during their time together in Colorado, Mr. Wang purchased a

 plane ticket for Ms. Luo to return to China. But Ms. Luo lost her passport, so she did

 not take the flight. She reported her lost passport to the Aurora, Colorado police

 department. She later located the passport and did not pursue the matter further.

       In October 2013, Ms. Luo ended her relationship with Mr. Wang and moved to

 California. Years later, in 2020, she learned through a separate lawsuit in California

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857         Date Filed: 12/13/2023      Page: 3

 that Mr. Wang had made what she alleges were false statements about her.

 Specifically, Mr. Wang had allegedly denounced Ms. Luo for (1) falsely accusing

 Mr. Chen of sexual assault, (2) filing a false police report that she had lost her

 passport, and (3) fraudulently obtaining travel insurance funds based on the lost

 passport.

       2. Procedural History of this Case

       Ms. Luo filed this diversity action in September 2020. She complained that

 Mr. Wang had unreasonably disclosed private facts about her and had committed

 outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation

 per se.1 Mr. Wang filed a motion to dismiss the TAC. The district court granted the

 motion in part, concluding that to the extent Ms. Luo’s claims pertained to allegedly

 defamatory statements Mr. Wang had made in the California litigation, those

 statements were protected by the absolute litigation privilege. The court also held

 that under Colorado law, a defamation claim accrues on the date of publication.

       As the case proceeded, a controversy arose concerning Internet posts Ms. Luo

 purportedly made from her cell phone. In an unrelated California criminal

 proceeding, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) had obtained a

 forensic image of Ms. Luo’s cell phone. Seeking information to bolster his defense,

       1
         Ms. Luo initially proceeded under a pseudonym, but the district court later
 denied her request to proceed anonymously. We upheld that decision. Luo v. Wang,
 71 F.4th 1289, 1303 (10th Cir. 2023).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857       Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 4

 Mr. Wang subpoenaed this data from the LASD. Ms. Luo filed motions to quash the

 subpoena, but the district court denied them.

       On July 12, 2022, after her attorney withdrew from the case, the magistrate

 judge ordered Ms. Luo to provide her current contact information. On September 14,

 2022, he reiterated that order. Nearly two weeks later, however, the magistrate judge

 concluded that Ms. Luo had refused to comply with the order, causing “considerable

 inconvenience to the Court.” R., Vol. V at 289.

       On August 24, 2022, the magistrate judge held a discovery conference. At the

 conference, Mr. Wang’s counsel outlined various court orders that Ms. Luo had

 violated, including orders requiring her to provide a financial affidavit, amend her

 request for damages, and provide an unredacted letter from a witness. During the

 conference, both Mr. Wang’s counsel and the magistrate judge questioned Ms. Luo

 on the record. The magistrate judge later characterized her responses as “evasive at

 best and deceiving or untrue at worst.” Id.

       At the conference, the parties also discussed Ms. Luo’s deposition.

 Mr. Wang’s counsel requested an in-person deposition. Ms. Luo did not object to

 being deposed in the federal courthouse in Denver. The magistrate judge later

 explained that he adopted the “unusual procedure” of taking her deposition at the

 courthouse because of Ms. Luo’s “contumacious behavior in this lawsuit.” Id. at 288.

       Notwithstanding her lack of objection, Ms. Luo later moved to quash the

 subpoena to appear at her deposition. She contended she should only be deposed in

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-1403     Document: 010110967857      Date Filed: 12/13/2023      Page: 5

 California, not Colorado. The district court denied the motion to quash, and the

 deposition went forward.

       During the deposition, Mr. Wang’s counsel asked the magistrate judge to come

 into the courtroom to address an issue. He explained that Ms. Luo had refused to

 answer questions concerning her travel to the United States, specifically about “the

 legal basis for her entry into the United States.” Id. at 290. The magistrate judge

 ordered her to answer, but he also advised her of certain legal options she might have

 concerning these questions. After the advisement, Ms. Luo declined (1) to invoke

 her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer or (2) to answer subject to certain

 procedural protections the magistrate judge described. The magistrate judge then

 advised Ms. Luo that “[i]f she persisted in disobeying my Order to answer the

 questions, this could be construed as a contempt of court, and the sanction could

 include, without limitation, dismissal of her lawsuit with prejudice.” Id. at 291. She

 responded that she understood, but she still refused to answer on grounds of

 “relevance.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

       The magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the action be dismissed as

 a sanction for Ms. Luo’s discovery-related abuses, including and especially her

 disobedience of his direct orders to answer questions during her deposition, which he

 found constituted direct contempt. Before choosing dismissal as a just sanction, the

 magistrate judge analyzed the required factors, see Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d

 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). He concluded that under this analysis “the question [was]

 not a close one.” R., Vol. V at 292. He recommended that the action be dismissed

                                            5
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857       Date Filed: 12/13/2023    Page: 6

 with prejudice and that Mr. Wang be awarded his reasonable fees and costs related to

 the deposition.

       The district court accepted and adopted the recommendation, dismissed the

 action with prejudice, and ordered that Mr. Wang receive his expenses and fees

 associated with Ms. Luo’s deposition. She appealed.

                                      ANALYSIS

       1. Standard of Review

       Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the district court

 to sanction a party for failure to cooperate with discovery. We review the district

 court’s imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, for an abuse of discretion. See

 Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 920. We also review the amount of attorney’s fees awarded

 for a discovery violation for an abuse of discretion. Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v.

 AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673, 678 (10th Cir. 2012). The district court’s factual

 findings are reviewed for clear error. See id.

       2. The Procedures Followed in this Case Afforded Ms. Luo Due Process
          and the Contempt Finding was not an Abuse of Discretion.

       Ms. Luo challenges both the substance and procedure of the contempt finding.

 Substantively, she contends the district court erred in concluding that information

 about her travels to the United States was relevant. In reaching this conclusion, both

 the magistrate judge and the district court cited allegations in the TAC about

 Ms. Luo’s international travels in July 2013. See R., Vol. V at 290, 303-04. Ms. Luo

 argues this rationale was flawed because she only refused to answer questions

                                            6
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857        Date Filed: 12/13/2023     Page: 7

 concerning her travel and immigration status in 2014. She argues throughout her

 brief that these questions were irrelevant to the allegations in the TAC about her 2013

 travels and interactions with Mr. Wang. See, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 18-19, 25-26.

       But that is not the argument she made to the district court. In her objections to

 the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Ms. Luo did not present any argument about

 the relevance of her travels in 2013 versus her travels in 2014. See Suppl. R., Vol. I

 at 331-57. That being the case, she waived the right to appellate review of this

 contention. See Luo, 71 F.4th at 1297 (declining, under this court’s “firm waiver

 rule,” to reach contentions of error not raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s

 order, where the interests of justice did not support making an exception to the rule).

       More generally, Ms. Luo challenges the district court’s reliance on her refusal

 to answer questions about her travel to the United States. She characterizes these

 questions as irrelevant and abusive. But the district court found the questions were

 sufficiently relevant to require her to answer them. Notably, this case presents issues

 concerning Mr. Wang’s invitation to Ms. Luo to come to the United States, her

 failure to leave the country after Mr. Wang bought her a plane ticket, her alleged

 police report concerning the loss of her passport, and her alleged filing of a

 fraudulent travel insurance claim on the ticket Ms. Wang bought for her. As the

 district court determined, the allegations of Ms. Luo’s complaint “relate to her travels

 to and in the United States.” R., Vol. V at 304. This distinguishes cases she cites, in

 which parties sought information concerning immigration status that lacked relevance

 to a claim or defense or that would prejudice the plaintiff’s assertion of statutory

                                             7
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857        Date Filed: 12/13/2023      Page: 8

 rights. In addition, the magistrate judge offered Ms. Luo procedures she could follow

 to protect her rights in connection with the questions, but she declined to pursue

 those procedures.

       Turning to her procedural challenge, Ms. Luo argues that by statute, a

 magistrate judge who is not exercising consent jurisdiction must refer contempt

 charges to a district court judge for determination. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 19

 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii)).2 Giving her arguments a liberal construction,

 she contends that the district court’s failure to follow that procedure here both

 violated the statute and denied her procedural due process, because she did not

 receive notice or an opportunity to respond and the district court did not hold a

 hearing.3

       The district court addressed and rejected her procedurally based argument in

 its order. The court explained that the magistrate judge’s recommendation fully laid

       2
         This statutory section provides that in cases of civil contempt, a magistrate
 judge “shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be
 served, upon [the purported contemnor], an order requiring such person to appear
 before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not
 be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified.”
       3
          Ms. Luo also argues that the magistrate judge deprived her of her right to due
 process by ordering her to answer questions about her immigration status without
 first giving her notice and an “opportunity to conduct legal research and cite legal
 authorities” concerning the issue. Aplt. Opening Br. at 19. She fails to show that
 due process required this form of advance notice. As the district court noted, the
 magistrate judge thoroughly advised her of the consequences of failing to answer the
 questions. He also provided her with options to protect herself in connection with
 her answers, which she rejected.

                                            8
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857       Date Filed: 12/13/2023     Page: 9

 out the facts regarding Ms. Luo’s failure to answer questions at her depositions, and

 she did not deny in her objections that she refused to answer questions posed to her.

 Because there was no dispute regarding the facts of what took place, the district court

 found a hearing was unnecessary, and it agreed with the magistrate judge on de novo

 review that the facts demonstrated Ms. Luo committed a civil contempt. The district

 court also found she received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the

 possibility of being sanctioned for contempt because the magistrate judge thoroughly

 advised her of the consequences of declining to answer at her deposition, she

 received notice of the district court’s consideration of the contempt issue through the

 recommendation, and she had an opportunity to brief the issue through her

 objections. See R., Vol. V at 306-07.

       On appeal, Ms. Luo challenges the district court’s determination that there

 was no dispute concerning the facts because she argues she “raised multiple

 misstatements of facts by the magistrate [judge].” Aplt. Opening Br. at 22. Although

 she did raise some factual disputes in her objections to the magistrate judge’s

 recommendation, see Suppl. R., Vol. I at 332-35, most of these disputes did not

 concern the events of her direct contempt. Instead, she disputed the magistrate

 judge’s findings concerning her prior history of evasion or disobedience of the

 court’s orders. Ms. Luo fails to show the procedures described in § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii)

 entitled her to an evidentiary hearing concerning those facts, which could have

 resulted in sanctions, including dismissal, even absent a finding of direct contempt.

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). And to the extent any of the factual disputes she

                                            9
Appellate Case: 22-1403     Document: 010110967857         Date Filed: 12/13/2023     Page: 10

  raised might arguably relate to her direct contempt, our review confirms that the

  failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on those issues was harmless. Although she

  continues to complain the district court did not follow the procedures set out in

  § 636, she fails to rebut the district court’s conclusion that she was given notice and

  an opportunity to be heard on the contempt issue. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 22.

  Likewise, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that

  Ms. Luo committed a civil contempt at her deposition.

         3. The District Court did not Abuse its Discretion in Imposing Dismissal
            with Prejudice as a Sanction.

         Dismissal is available as a sanction in cases of “willfulness, bad faith, or some

  fault of [the party].” Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 402 F.3d 1039, 1044 (10th Cir.

  2005) (emphasis added). The district court can therefore impose dismissal when

  a party willfully disobeys orders. Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP, 41 F.4th 1246,

  1265-66 (10th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1022 (2023). Before imposing

  dismissal as a sanction, however, a district court should ordinarily evaluate “(1) the

  degree of actual prejudice to the [other party]; (2) the amount of interference with the

  judicial process; . . . (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned

  the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for

  noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.” HCG Platinum, LLC v.

  Preferred Prod. Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191, 1203 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal

  quotation marks omitted).

                                              10
Appellate Case: 22-1403     Document: 010110967857         Date Filed: 12/13/2023       Page: 11

         The magistrate judge analyzed these factors, and the district court adopted his

  analysis. Having reviewed Ms. Luo’s challenges to the district court’s reasoning, we

  conclude she fails to show the court abused its discretion in dismissing the action as a

  sanction for her discovery violations. See Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 918 (“[I]f, after

  considering all the relevant factors, [the district court] concludes that dismissal alone

  would satisfy the interests of justice,” the court has not abused its discretion.).

         4. The District Court had Authority to Award Expenses and Fees for the
            Entire Deposition.

         The district court awarded Mr. Wang “his reasonable fees and costs associated

  with arranging, preparing for, and attending the deposition” of Ms. Luo. R., Vol. V

  at 293; see also id. at 310. She argues that under Rule 37, the district court could

  only award those fees caused by her discovery violation that were necessary to

  reimburse Mr. Wang. Aplt. Opening Br. at 34-35. She contends it was unfair to

  require her to pay for his expenses and fees for the entire deposition because

  Mr. Wang would have incurred the costs of taking her deposition even if she had not

  refused to answer the travel-related questions.

         Ms. Luo’s misconduct occurred during and in relation to the proceeding for

  which she was sanctioned: a deposition at which she refused to answer questions.

  The court limited its award to Mr. Wang’s actual expenses associated with that

  proceeding. The only question is whether the district court was further obligated to

  determine what portion of the fees and costs of the deposition—discovery that had

  been rendered entirely useless because Ms. Luo’s misconduct resulted in the

                                              11
Appellate Case: 22-1403    Document: 010110967857        Date Filed: 12/13/2023   Page: 12

  dismissal of her action—were attributable to Ms. Luo’s misconduct. Although she

  cites cases generally requiring a nexus between noncompliance with the rules and the

  amount of fees and costs awarded, Ms. Luo fails to show the district court abused its

  discretion in this instance by awarding Mr. Wang his entire fees and costs related to

  the deposition. We therefore affirm the award.

                                     CONCLUSION

        We affirm the district court’s order dismissing this case with prejudice and

  awarding Mr. Wang his expenses and fees for the September 22, 2022, deposition.

  Our affirmance moots several of Ms. Luo’s challenges to the district court’s

  interlocutory decisions, and we need not address them.4 We grant her motion to

  proceed without prepayment of fees and costs.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

        4
          Among these issues are whether the district court erred in (1) denying her
  motion to quash the subpoena directed to the LASD; (2) denying her motion to quash
  the subpoena to testify at her deposition; (3) granting Mr. Wang’s motion to dismiss
  one of Ms. Luo’s claims based on litigation privilege; and (4) granting Mr. Wang’s
  motion to dismiss based on the initial date of publication.

                                            12