Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-04471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Kyle Zoellner v. City of Arcata, Judge Corley denied Zoellner’s sanctions motion because he showed neither a discovery violation nor a basis for Rule 11 sanctions.
The ruling affected plaintiff Kyle Christopher Zoellner, the defendants including Detective Losey, non-party Maggie Fleming, and defense counsel by denying the sanctions and other relief Zoellner requested.
What happened
Kyle Christopher Zoellner asked the court to impose sanctions based on five categories of documents he said the defendants produced late, including a fiber report, emails, police reports, and other records. He sought several remedies against Detective Losey, the defendants, Maggie Fleming, and defense counsel.
The court denied the request for sanctions under Rule 37 because Zoellner did not show that a defendant violated the disclosure rules or used the documents in a way that triggered those rules. The court also denied sanctions under Rule 11 because that rule does not apply to discovery materials or conduct governed by the discovery rules.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion and stated that the order disposed of docket number 382.
The detailed version
- Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey · No. 3:18-cv-04471
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Kyle Christopher Zoellner moved for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and 11. He challenged the timing of production for five categories of documents: a Department of Justice written fiber report; a 2020 email from non-party District Attorney Maggie Fleming to the Arcata Police Chief; April 2017 emails between Chief Tom Chapman and Fleming; 21 pages of police reports; and 834 pages of other records.
Zoellner requested several forms of relief. Against Detective Losey, he sought a finding that there was no probable cause. Against all defendants, he sought entry of default on count 9. Against Fleming, he sought $2,313.86 and an order that he not have to pay travel expenses. Against defense counsel, he sought $40,125,000 in attorney fees.
Rule 37 Analysis
Rule 37(c)(1) can restrict a party from using information or a witness that should have been disclosed under Rule 26, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court explained that Rule 26 requires disclosure of individuals and documents a party may use to support its claims or defenses, and Rule 26 requires supplementation when necessary.
The court concluded that Zoellner had not shown that any defendant violated Rule 26(a) or Rule 26(e). In particular, he did not argue that Detective Losey had used any of the challenged documents on a motion, at trial, or otherwise. The court therefore denied the request for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).
Rule 11 Analysis
Rule 11 permits sanctions for certain improper filings or unsupported legal or factual contentions. But Rule 11 does not apply to disclosures, discovery requests, responses, objections, or motions governed by Rules 26 through 37. Because the challenged materials and conduct concerned discovery, the court held that Rule 11 did not provide a basis for sanctions. The court denied Zoellner’s request for Rule 11(c) sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley held that Zoellner had not met his burden under either cited basis for sanctions. The court denied the motion and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 382. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the requested probable-cause issue.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.