Lucero v. City of Clovis Police Department
2:19-cv-00445-KWR-KRS
D.N.M.Dec 2, 2020Background
- Case narrowed to a single claim: Plaintiff Christine Lucero's excessive-force claim against Officer Aguilar after the court granted partial summary judgment for defendants.
- Court lifted discovery stay and, after Plaintiff renewed motions to compel, held a June 11, 2020 hearing granting the motions and ordering: Aguilar to supplement discovery by July 3, provide deposition dates by July 10, and sit for deposition by August 30; City/other defendants to supplement by July 10.
- Defendants failed to comply with the July 8 order: produced only Aguilar’s personnel file (USB) and did not provide verified interrogatory responses, police policies, insurance, discipline records, or records about the police dog central to the case; Aguilar’s deposition occurred August 17.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions (seeking default judgment and attorneys’ fees) and a Supplement updating outstanding discovery; Defendants did not file a written response to the motion or supplement but counsel appeared at the December 1, 2020 hearing and offered excuses (Aguilar out of the country, short deadlines, office move, cost reasons).
- District previously awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees for the successful motions to compel; Defendants had not paid those fees by the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is an appropriate sanction for discovery noncompliance | Seek default against defendants for failing to supplement discovery and obey court orders; also seek attorneys’ fees for briefing sanctions motion | Counsel offered excuses (Aguilar abroad, short compliance window, lost files in office move, no intent to ignore order; argued plaintiff was prepared for deposition) | Recommended: grant default judgment and award fees; Ehrenhaus factors overall favor default |
| Whether Plaintiff was prejudiced by defendants’ discovery failures | Lack of discovery impeded prosecution, forced extra expense, impeded expert and deposition preparation | Argued plaintiff had adequate information for Aguilar’s deposition despite missing discovery | Prejudice found; weighs in favor of default |
| Whether defendants’ conduct was culpable/willful | Failures were intentional or at least intentional noncompliance; no extension sought or evidence of inability to comply | Claimed lack of intent to ignore and practical difficulties | Court found culpable (no evidence of inability; cost-based decision shows fault) |
| Whether lesser sanctions would be effective | Lesser sanctions have already failed; defendants ignored orders and the sanctions motion | Arguably fees and prior orders suffice; no persuasive mitigation offered | Lesser sanctions deemed ineffective; default justified (and Plaintiff’s motion deemed consented to by failure to respond) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting Inc., 715 F.2d 1442 (10th Cir. 1983) (default disfavored and appropriate only when adversary process halted)
- Klein-Becker USA, LLC v. Englert, 711 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2013) (default/dismissal reserved for willful or culpable noncompliance, not inability to comply)
- Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (sets factors district courts should weigh before imposing dismissal/default sanctions)
- Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2002) (Ehrenhaus factors are guiding criteria, not a rigid test)