Gonzalez v. Ahern

Background

Michael Lockhart brought individual claims concerning the denial of medical care while he was incarcerated in an Alameda County jail. After the parties agreed on a deposition date, Lockhart’s counsel told Defendants that Lockhart would not attend and would not reschedule. Plaintiffs also declined to join a stipulation dismissing Lockhart’s claims and declined to join a discovery letter brief seeking an order compelling his deposition.

The court then ordered Lockhart to appear for deposition on October 5, 2023, warning that failure to appear could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Lockhart did not appear. Wellpath moved to dismiss his claims with prejudice and requested expenses related to the deposition and motion.

Dismissal

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) permits dismissal, in whole or in part, when a party disobeys an order to provide or permit discovery. The court applied five factors used to decide whether dismissal for failure to comply with a court order is appropriate: the public interest in quickly resolving cases, the court’s need to manage its docket, prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions are available.

The court found that four of the five factors supported dismissal. It concluded that Lockhart delayed the case by refusing to participate in discovery and by failing to appear after the court ordered him to do so. The court also found that its prior warning satisfied the requirement to consider less severe sanctions and that, given Lockhart’s lack of resources, no other sufficient sanction was available. The factor favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal.

Fees and sanction

Rule 37 generally requires an award of reasonable expenses caused by a discovery violation unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would be unjust. The court found that Lockhart’s failure to appear was not substantially justified. Wellpath requested $1,300, including a $300 court-reporter charge and attorney fees. Although Wellpath submitted the court-reporter invoice, it did not provide enough information to establish that the requested attorney fees were reasonable.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Wellpath’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Lockhart’s claims with prejudice under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) for failure to prosecute and ordered Lockhart to pay Wellpath $300 as a sanction for failing to attend the court-ordered deposition. The order disposed of Docket No. 340.