Buccola v. Boucher

Background

Theresa I. Buccola brought claims against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, five individual defendants, and Monterey County based on alleged constitutional-rights violations arising from her July 2020 arrest for entering Carmel Beach while it was closed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. She also alleged that Carmel officers arrested and searched her in February 2021 when she went to the Carmel Police Department to obtain body-worn camera footage. The opinion states that the related criminal charges were later dismissed.

The court had previously dismissed several versions of Buccola’s complaint with permission to amend. It dismissed Monterey County from the case without permission to amend and granted in part and denied in part the Carmel Defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court ordered Buccola to file another amended complaint, or a statement saying she did not intend to amend, by October 16, 2024. She filed neither.

Discovery Noncompliance

The City served interrogatories and requests for documents. The court ordered Buccola to provide supplemental discovery responses and productions, later narrowed the required discovery, and extended the deadline to September 9, 2024. The court warned that continued noncompliance could lead the Carmel Defendants to seek sanctions under Rule 37. Buccola did not comply. She did not dispute that she violated the discovery order.

The Carmel Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41. Buccola filed a late opposition, which the court considered, and appeared at the October 2, 2024 hearing with counsel for the Carmel Defendants.

Reason for Dismissal

Rule 41(b) allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. Rule 37(b) allows sanctions, including dismissal, when a party fails to obey a discovery order. The court applied five factors: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, prejudice to defendants, the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available.

The court found that the first two factors favored sanctions because Buccola’s violation delayed the case and required the court to spend resources resolving discovery disputes. The third factor also favored dismissal because the missing discovery concerned damages calculations and social-media statements about the events, impairing the Carmel Defendants’ ability to defend the case. The court noted that Buccola sought $52 million in damages.

Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal, the court found that it had already tried lesser measures. It had extended deadlines, narrowed the discovery, warned that dismissal could result, and discussed alternatives at the hearing. The court concluded that further extensions, a stay, or excluding damages evidence would not remedy the missing discovery because Buccola had declared that she would not participate in discovery or communicate with opposing counsel. The court also found that her noncompliance was deliberate rather than the result of mistake or error.

Scope and Disposition

The court dismissed the action as to all Carmel Defendants, even though the particular discovery order concerned discovery served by the City. It found that the discovery related to all Carmel Defendants, that Buccola alleged the individual defendants were City agents, and that the defendants shared counsel. The court also noted that Buccola objected to discovery and filings from all Carmel Defendants and their shared counsel.

The motion to dismiss was granted. The action was dismissed as to all Carmel Defendants with prejudice under Rules 37(b) and 41(b). The court awarded no costs or attorney’s fees connected with the motion, finding that an award would be unjust under the circumstances. The opinion states that judgment would be entered separately.