Bols v. Newsom ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Case No.: 20-cv-0873-BTM(BLM) 12 JD BOLS, et al., 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS 14 v. 15 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On August 27, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce the documents identified in 20 section 3a of the parties’ Joint Status Report [ECF No. 111]. ECF No. 113. Plaintiffs failed to 21 comply with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs’ counsel did not file a request for additional time to 22 comply. See Docket. 23 Despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s complete disregard of his own agreement and the Court’s 24 order, the Court provided Plaintiffs and counsel with another opportunity to comply with their 25 discovery obligations and the Court’s orders and ordered Plaintiffs to produce the documents by 26 September 14, 2021. ECF No. 115. The Court specifically warned Plaintiffs and counsel that if 27 they “fail to produce the documents by the September 14, 2021 deadline, the Court will impose 28 sanctions on Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs again failed to comply 1 with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs’ counsel again did not file a request for additional time to 2 comply. See Docket. 3 On September 17, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause 4 why sanctions should not be imposed for their failures to produce the documents as ordered. 5 ECF No. 116 at 2. The Court advised Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel that their “repeated failures 6 to comply with Court orders and to produce the requested documents in a timely manner have 7 unreasonably delayed discovery, resulted in unnecessary motion practice, and wasted judicial 8 resources” and that, therefore, the Court was “inclined to impose monetary sanctions against 9 Plaintiffs JD Bols and Amy Mullins-Boychak and Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Baric.” Id. The Court 10 ordered Plaintiffs and Mr. Baric to respond to the OSC and file “declarations signed under the 11 penalty of perjury” explaining “their involvement, or lack thereof, in the violation of the Court’s 12 orders” by September 27, 2021. Id. at 2-3. Neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Baric filed a response or 13 declaration and Mr. Baric did not file a request for additional time to respond. See Docket. 14 On October 1, 2021, Defendants jointly replied to the Court’s order to show cause stating 15 that “Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to comply with this Court’s Orders ( , ECF 103 and ECF 116), 16 coupled with the recent failure of Plaintiff Bols and his attorney to respond to the County 17 Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (ECF 114), supports the imposition of a terminating 18 sanction in this case.” ECF No. 123 at 2. 19 Defendants’ motion for an order recommending terminating sanctions based upon the 20 discovery violations is DENIED. The Court has addressed those violations by providing 21 Defendants with additional time to conduct discovery and to file dispositive motions. See ECF 22 Nos. 115, 116, 120 & 121. The Court also declines to recommend terminating sanctions based 23 upon Plaintiffs’ and Mr. Baric’s repeated failures to comply with this Court’s orders. While the 24 Court finds that Plaintiffs and Mr. Baric knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the 25 Court’s orders, the Court finds that these violations, while blatant and disrespectful to the Court, 26 the judicial system, and Defendants, do not warrant the draconian sanction of dismissal of the 27 28 1 || case.! See Howard v. Harris, 744 Fed.Appx. 364, 366 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Halaco Eng’g Co. 2 ||v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal under a court’s inherent powers is 3 || justified in extreme circumstances, in response to abusive litigation practices, and to insure the 4 orderly administration of justice[.]”) (emphasis added)); see also Vecron Exim Ltd. V. Clinton 5 || Lee Stokes, III, No. CV 17-02944-CAS RAOx, 2018 WL 3830916, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July, 19, 2018) 6 || (citing FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir. 1994) (describing dismissal sanction as a 7 ||“draconian remedy,” a “remedy of last resort,” and as a “lethal weapon”)). 8 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ and Mr. Baric’s repeated violations of this Court's orders 9 again warrant monetary sanctions as their disregard of the Court’s orders and their 10 ||discovery obligations seriously impacted this case and the judicial process by unreasonably 11 ||delaying discovery, causing unnecessary motion practice, and wasting judicial resources. 12 || Accordingly, the Court sanctions Mr. Bols, Ms. Mullins-Boychak, and Plaintiffs’ attorney, Steven 13 ||Baric $2000 each. The sanctions must be paid to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and 14 || Forfeitures, not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury, by October 15, 2021. 15 ||See CivLR 83.1 (Sanctions for Noncompliance with Rules). Plaintiffs and Mr. Baric must mail 16 || their payments to the Clerk of the Court, 333 W_ Broadway, Ste 420, San Diego, CA 92101 or 17 || pay in person at the Clerk’s Office on the 4th floor. Plaintiffs JD Bols and Amy Amy Mullins- 18 || Boychak and Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Steven Baric, must each file a declaration on or before 19 || October 22, 2021 stating that the sanction payment has been made in accordance with this 20 || Order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: 10/5/2021 lxirbee Mager 23 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde 24 25 t~Cs~SCS~S 27 ||! The Court notes that a motion for sanctions is pending before Judge Moskowitz and the undersigned judge offers no opinion on whether Plaintiffs’ and Mr. Baric’s repeated violations 28 impact that motion or any other sanctions motion.