United States District Court, D. Hawaii
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is Defendants Michael Kraus and Tree Works,
Inc.'s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for
Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“Motion”), filed
December 5, 2017. Plaintiff Christopher Young
(“Plaintiff”) did not file a response.
matter came on for hearing on January 22, 2018. Plaintiff
appeared pro se by phone and Ronald Shigekane, Esq., appeared
on behalf of Defendants. After careful consideration of
Defendants' submissions, the applicable law, and the
arguments of Plaintiff and counsel, the Court HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED for the reasons
October 10, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to compel answers
to interrogatories. Doc. No. 90. The Court orally granted the
motion at the December 20, 2016 hearing and ordered Plaintiff
to submit responses to interrogatories by February 6, 2017.
Doc. No. 104. A written order issued on January 12, 2017
(“Discovery Order”), directing Plaintiff to
provide complete and detailed responses to Defendants'
interrogatories by February 6, 2017. Doc. No. 105. Plaintiff
attempted to appeal the Discovery Order, but his request was
denied without prejudice because it did not comply with Local
Rule 74.1 and because it was untimely. See Order
Denying the Portion of Plaintiff's Motion Seeking
Reconsideration of This Court's January 27, 2017 Order
and Denying Without Prejudice the Portion of the Motion
Attempting to Appeal the Order or Rulings Issued by the
Magistrate Judge (“Reconsideration Order”), Doc.
No. 111 at 8. U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi afforded
Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended appeal of the
Order, but imposed a deadline of March 3, 2017 to do so, and
identified issues to be addressed in any amended appeal.
Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff did not file an amended appeal
of the Order.
March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the
Reconsideration Order. Doc. No. 114. The Ninth Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on April 21,
2017. Doc. No. 118.
1, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions against
Plaintiff. Doc. No. 119. The motion was heard on June 23,
2017. The same day, this Court issued an Order Granting
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff
(“Sanction Order”). Doc. No. 125. This Court
declined to recommend dismissal at that time, but again
ordered Plaintiff to provide complete and detailed responses
to Defendants' interrogatories by July 7, 2017, and
awarded Defendants the fees and costs incurred in connection
with the motion. Id. at 5. The Court cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to timely produce responses would
result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including
the possibility of dismissal. Id. at 6. On June 29,
2017, the Court issued an Entering Order (“EO”)
concluding that defense counsel reasonably and necessarily
incurred $739.50 in fees. Doc. No. 129.
10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Verification of Plaintiff's Objection to the
6/23/17 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Sanctions
Against Plaintiff.” Doc. No. 130. On October 12, 2017,
Judge Kobayashi issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's
Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order Granting
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and
the Magistrate Judge's Entering Order Determining the
Amount of the Sanction (“10/12/17 Order”). Doc.
No. 134. Plaintiff was ordered to provide complete and
detailed responses to the interrogatories by November 9,
2017, and to remit payment of the $739.50 sanction by
November 16, 2017. Id. at 12.
October 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Verification Plaintiff's Objection to Judge's
Order 10/12/17 Continue to Avoid this Court's Lack of
Jurisdiction Based on Undisputed Violations in Removal
09/28/2015 Proof of Evidence in the Docket at [Dkt. Nos.
1-135].” Doc. No. 135. In an October 31, 2017 EO, Judge
Kobayashi construed the filing as a motion for
reconsideration of the 10/12/17 Order and denied the same.
Doc. No. 136. The November 9 and 16, 2017 deadlines to
produce responses to the interrogatories and to pay the
$739.50 sanction, respectively, remained in effect.
Id. A formal order issued on November 7, 2017
(“11/7/17 Order”), again ordering Plaintiff to
comply with the foregoing deadlines. Doc. No. 137.
November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Verification Plaintiff's Reply and Objection to
Judge Kobayashi's Order/Judgement [Dkt. No. 134]
10/12/2017, [Dkt. No. 136] 10/31/2017 and Judge Chang's
Order [Dkt. No. 125] 06/23/2017.” Doc. No. 139. Because
Plaintiff signed and mailed this filing prior to receiving
the 11/7/17 Order, Judge Kobayashi construed it as a
supplemental memorandum in support of Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration. Doc. No. 141.
November 14, 2017, Plaintiff appealed the 10/12/17
Order. Doc. No. 140. On December 19, 2017, the
Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Doc. No. 146.
request that the Court impose terminating sanctions and award
attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”)
party or a party's officer, director, or managing
agent--or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or
31(a)(4)--fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a),
the court where the ...