PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Robert W. Mitchell (WSBA #37444) HONORABLE JUDGE SUKO
Attorney at Law, PLLC
1020 North Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: 509-327-2224
Thomas G. Jarrard (WSBA #39774)
Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard PLLC
1020 North Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99203
Telephone: 425-239-7290
Matthew Z. Crotty (WSBA #39284)
Crotty and Son Law Firm, PLLC
421 West Riverside, Suite 1005
Spokane, WA 99201-0300
Telephone: (509) 850 7011
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyle Wixom
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
LYLE WIXOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMCO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a Washington Corporation;
FRANK IMHOF and individual, and
COURTNEY IMHOF an individual,
Defendants.
Case No. CV-12-413-LRS
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
DATE: August 16, 2013
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
(Without Oral Argument)
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment adjudication of his USERRA
reemployment claim. Defendants argued that issues of fact existed as to the issue
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of standing; specifically, whether Mr. Wixom timely applied for reemployment.
Defendants submitted the declaration of Courtney Imhof in support. Ms. Imhof's
declaration misleadingly states that "IMCO has no recollection of ever receiving
[plaintiff's] application for reemployment." At summary judgment defendant
argued that "no such [employment application] was in Mr. Wixom's file" and that
the application's absence was "evidence" that Mr. Wixom never reapplied for
employment as required under the law. The Court denied Mr. Wixom's motion,
discovery continued, and at Ms. Imhof's subsequent deposition she testified that
IMCO had no way of knowing whether Mr. Wixom reapplied for work because
IMCO destroyed the job application records for 2008 - - the year plaintiff
reapplied for work. Indeed, Ms. Imhof admitted it would be "impossible" for
IMCO to have a copy of Mr. Wixom's 2008 application. Confronted with that
testimony, defendants stipulated that Mr. Wixom timely reapplied for work.
Additionally, defendants' plead, as an affirmative defense, that it was
impossible to reemploy Mr. Wixom following completion of his military service.
Customarily such affirmative defenses are driven by the employer's financial
peril: that it is impossible to reemploy a returning service-member when the
company is going broke. To that end, Mr. Wixom sought to test defendants'
affirmative defense by inquiring as to IMCO's officers and directors salaries
during the 2008 - 2009 timeframe: if the officer/director pay went up during that
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
time it would call the impossibility affirmative defense into question.
Mr. Wixom sought answers as to the salary information in a Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) deposition of IMCO. In response to that inquiry IMCO's counsel
instructed the deponent not to answer even though no protective order existed or
was sought. Further, IMCO's 30(b)(6) deponent was not prepared to testify as to
numerous 30(b)(6) deposition topics.
Courts routinely grant sanctions under such facts and should do so here.
II. NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING DATE AND TIME
The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions will
take place August 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m without oral argument.
III. CONCISE STATEMENT OF RELIEF
Plaintiff requests that the Court: (A) strike Defendants’ USERRA
reemployment affirmative defense and hold Ms. Imhof in contempt; (B) order the
Defendants to pay Mr. Wixom the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with
conducting the 30(b)(6) deposition and bringing this motion; and (C) compel
defendants to produce IMCO officer/director salary data.
IV. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Does Courtney Imhof's misleading summary judgment declaration
justify the imposition of sanctions? 2. Does IMCO's conduct, instruction not to
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
answer, failure to produce, and failure to prepare a deponent at the 30(b)(6)
deposition, justify the imposition of sanctions? 3. Should IMCO be compelled to
disclose its officers/directors salary data for 2008-2009?
B. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Defendants answered Mr. Wixom’s USERRA complaint and pled, as
an affirmative defense, that re-employing Mr. Wixom would have “created an
undue hardship, as a result of a change in circumstances.”1 USERRA allows that
defense. 38 U.S.C. §4312(d)(1)(A).
2. Mr. Wixom sought to test Defendants’ “changed circumstances”
defense and served IMCO with a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice that
sought testimony as to IMCO's officers and directors' compensation.2 At
deposition IMCO's counsel instructed the deponent not to answer that question.3
3. Defendants failed to produce a 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of
certain topic areas designated in the deposition notice.4 IMCO's testifying agent
stated that she received the deposition notice eight days prior to the deposition,
spent "10 minutes" talking to counsel in preparation for the deposition, did not
1 ECF 63, at 11 Aff. Def. No. 9.
2 Jarrard Decl. at ¶3.
3 Id. at ¶17 citing 30(b)(6) Dep. at 28-29.
4 Id. ¶15-21.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
review any documents in preparation for 30(b)(6) Topic No. 1, and, in preparing
to respond to 30(b)(6) Topic No. 10 "threw [her] hands in the air" after looking at
the lists of projects sought in Topic 10 and, in effect, ceased preparation.5
4. Lastly, Courtney Imhof submitted a declaration in response to
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Ms. Imhof's declaration misleadingly
suggested that Mr. Wixom never applied for reemployment, that defendants kept
accurate copies of job applications, and she had no record of his application.6 Ms.
Imhof's counsel, relying on those statements, argued that the non-existence of Mr.
Wixom's application in Mr. Wixom's personnel file was "evidence" that Mr.
Wixom never reapplied for work.7 But at Ms. Imhof's subsequent deposition she
testified that IMCO had no way of knowing whether Mr. Wixom applied for
reemployment because IMCO had destroyed all job applications from 2008 --- the
year Mr. Wixom asked for his job back.8 Confronted with Ms. Imhof's testimony,
the defendants reversed their summary judgment stance and admitted that Mr.
Wixom timely reapplied for reemployment.9
5 Id. at 15-21 citing 30(b)(6) Dep. at 10, 11, 33-34, 37.
6 ECF 48, ¶8.
7 ECF 70, at 8.
8 Mitchell Decl. at ¶¶28, 29.
9 Jarrard Decl. at ¶14.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. ARGUMENT.
1. The Court should sanction Ms. Imhof for her misleading
declaration testimony.
A Court may sanction a party who submits a declaration in bad faith. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(g); Newman v. Brandon, 2012 WL 4933478 * 4(E.D. Cal. Oct. 16,
2012). Ms. Imhof submitted a declaration in response to plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. Ms. Imhof declared “IMCO has no record of ever receiving
this application for reemployment that Mr. Wixom claims he delivered on or
about August 11, 2008.”10
At oral argument defense counsel stated: “…IMCO denies that they ever
received any reemployment application in August of 2008 from Mr. Wixom” and
“[t]he fact that that document is not in that file is evidence. That is evidence that
that document was never submitted by Mr. Wixom.”11
Defense counsel relied on
Ms. Imhof’s testimony when making those statements and so did the Court.12
But
the Court was correctly skeptical about Ms. Imhof’s assertions and left the issue of
10 ECF 48 at 8:2-6.
11 ECF 70 at 4:9-11; 8:14-16.
12 ECF 70 at 17:8 (“I think there are factual issues dealing with what happened in
August, potentially.”)
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sanctions open for further adjudication.13
At deposition Ms. Imhof testified that she shreds copies of job applications
every year and that she deletes the electronic copies every two years.14
Ms. Imhof
admitted that it would be “impossible” for IMCO to still have an electronic copy
of Mr. Wixom’s 2008 application and no chance exists of finding Mr. Wixom’s
application in order to verify whether or not it was submitted in 2008.15
Confronted with Ms. Imhof's deposition testimony the defense agreed not to
contest the previously-contested "timely requested reemployment" element of Mr.
Wixom's reemployment claim. Under such facts sanctions are appropriate. Ms.
Imhof misled the Court and counsel by stating that Mr. Wixom did not reapply for
work in 2008 when she knew that it was impossible for her to know the truth of
that assertion given the fact that IMCO destroyed those records years ago.
2. IMCO (a) waived its 30(b)(6) objections by not seeking a protective
order and (b) violated the rules by producing an unprepared
deponent.
As to point (a), IMCO raised varied objections at the 30(b)(6) deposition
and, as to Topic No. 7 (information regarding officer/director salary data), it
13 ECF 70 at 23:1 – 2, 7-8 ( "…and whether the other information from Ms. Imhof
is correct and is problematic.")
14 Mitchell Decl. at ¶¶ 28-29.
15 Id.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
instructed the deponent not to answer. IMCO did not seek (and has not sought) a
protective order as to the 30(b)(6) deposition.
"Unless a party or witness files a motion for a protective order and seeks
and obtains a stay prior to the deposition, a party or witness has no basis to refuse
to attend a properly noticed deposition" and "waive[s] any objection to the
deposition." Charm Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., 2012 WL 424581 *2 (W.D. Wn.
Feb. 9, 2012)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2); Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman,
333 F.2d 257, 269 (9th Cir.1964)). Failing to testify at deposition is tantamount to
failing to appear. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., Inc., 251
F.R.D. 534, 542 (D. Nev. 2008).
Topic No. 7 sought information as to IMCO's officer/directory salary data.
IMCO instructed its 30(b)(6) deponent to not answer those questions but did not
seek a protective order. IMCO's failure to move for a protective order waived
IMCO's deposition objections and instruction not to answer - - - an instruction that
is not even allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) as the instruction did not relate
to privilege, a pending order, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3).
As to point (b), once a corporation is named as a deponent it has the duty to
name and prepare individuals to testify on its behalf regarding matters known to
the corporation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.
Noble Metals Intern., Inc., 67 F.3d 766, 771 (9th Cir. 1995). Under Fed. R. Civ.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P. 37(a)(4) an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is treated as a
failure to disclose, answer, or respond and sanctions are imposed against a
corporation when its 30(b)(6) designee is unknowledgeable of relevant facts and it
fails to designate a knowledgeable witness. "Producing an unprepared witness is
tantamount to a failure to appear, which is sanctionable under Rule 37(d).” Black
Horse Lane Assoc. L.P. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275, 304 (3d Cir. 2000).
IMCO's 30(b)(6) deponent, Ms. Imhof, was not prepared for deposition.16
After receiving the deposition notice Ms. Imhof just “threw her hands up in the
air.”17
Ms. Imhof did not ask for help from IMCO staff, did not look at any
computer records, did not review any documents (besides two spread-sheets), and
did not review the documents her lawyer provided at the deposition. As such, Ms.
Imhof was unable to intelligently respond to Topic Nos. 1 through 10 and
sanctions should issue because of that conduct.18
3. IMCO should be compelled to produce officer/director salary data.
Discovery rules are given liberal treatment and discovery is proper if
relevant to a defendants' defense. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information sought in discovery is relevant if it "bears
16 Jarrard Decl. at ¶¶ 15-21.
17 Id. at ¶ 20.
18 Id.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on," or might reasonably lead to information that "bears on," any material fact or
issue in the action. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351
(1978). The salary data of IMCO's officers and directors is relevant to its
impossibility defense under USERRA - - - if it was impossible to reemploy Mr.
Wixom then it follows that the officer/director pay would decrease. Accordingly,
Mr. Wixom was entitled to ask questions about officer/director pay. As such,
IMCO should be compelled to answer the salary data question.
4. This Court should sanction Defendants.
Federal courts have the authority to sanction litigants for discovery abuses.
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991); In re Matter of Yagman,
796 F.2d 1165, 1187 (9th Cir. 1986). "Rule 37 sanctions must be applied
diligently both 'to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a
sanction, [and] to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the
absence of such a deterrent.'" Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427
U.S. 639, 643 (1976). A “district court has great latitude in imposing sanctions for
discovery abuse.” Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9th
Cir.1996).
Mr. Wixom spent thousands of dollars and expended hours of time to
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
expose Ms. Imhof’s dishonesty19
- - - dishonesty that denied plaintiff successes at
summary judgment (defense now stipulates to the timely reemployment prong).
Now that discovery is closed Mr. Wixom will need to spend more time and
resources to obtain evidence to which Defendants’ denied by failing to present a
knowledgeable witness. As such, the Court should grant the motion to compel
and (a) hold Ms. Imhof in contempt for submitting the misleading declaration (b)
strike defendants' changed circumstances USERRA defense, and (c) award
attorneys’ fees and costs under. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion should be granted for the above reasons.
DATED this 15th day of July 2013.
s/ Matthew Z. Crotty
Matthew Z. Crotty (WSBA #39284)
Crotty and Son Law Firm, PLLC
421 West Riverside, Suite 1005
Spokane, WA 99201-0300
Telephone: (509) 850 7011
19 Decl. Jarrard at 1-28, Decl. Mitchell at 30-37.
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS- 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 15, 2013 I caused the forgoing to be
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which
sent notification of such filing to the following:
1) James Bernard King, Email: [email protected]
2) Christopher Joseph Kerley, Email: [email protected]
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD, PLLC
s/ Thomas G. Jarrard
Thomas G. Jarrard (WSBA #39774)
Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard PLLC
1020 North Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99203
Telephone: 425-239-7290
Facsimile: 509-326-2932
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-14
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-15
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-16
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-17
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-18
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-19
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-20
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-21
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-22
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-23
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-24
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-25
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-26
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-27
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-28
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-29
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-30
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-31
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-32
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-33
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-34
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-35
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-36
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-37
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-38
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-39
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-40
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-41
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-42
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-43
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-44
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-45
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-46
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-47
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-48
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-49
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-50
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-51
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-52
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-53
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-54
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-55
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-56
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-57
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-58
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-59
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-60
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-61
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-62
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-63
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-64
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-65
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-66
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-67
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-68
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-69
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-70
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-71
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-72
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-73
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-74
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-1 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-75
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-76
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-77
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-78
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-79
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-80
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-81
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-82
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-83
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-84
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-85
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-86
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-87
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-88
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-89
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-90
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-91
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-92
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-93
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-94
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-95
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-96
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-97
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-98
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-99
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-100
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-101
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
DECLARATION OF THOMAS G. JARRARD-102
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-2 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-17
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-18
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-19
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-20
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-21
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-22
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-23
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-24
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-25
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-26
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-27
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-28
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-29
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-30
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
Declaration of Robert Mitchell and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions-31
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-3 Filed 07/15/13
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND SANCTIONS - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
LYLE WIXOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMCO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a Washington Corporation;
FRANK IMHOF, an individual,
Defendants.
Case No. CV-12-413-LRS
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND SANCTIONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lyle Wixom’s Motion to Compel and
Sanctions. Being fully informed based on the arguments presented in the motion
and response, the pleadings on file, and any other relevant matter, the Court
hereby GRANTS the motion as follows:
Defendants’ USERRA reemployment affirmative defense (38 U.S.C. §
4312(d)(1)(A) is stricken, Ms. Imhof is in contempt; Defendants are ordered to
pay Mr. Wixom the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with conducting the June
28, 2013 30(b)(6) deposition and bringing the motion for sanctions; and
Defendants are Ordered to produce the IMCO officer/director salary data
requested at that deposition.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this _____ day of ____________, 2013.
_______________________________
LONNY R. SUKO
United States District Court Judge
Case 2:12-cv-00413-LRS Document 75-4 Filed 07/15/13