govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-01088-2

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 
 
WO 
 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 
 
 
Jabril Caldwell-Parker, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
Surprise Police Department, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
No. CV-21-01088-PHX-DWL (JZB) 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
In January 2022, pro se Plaintiff Jabril Caldwell-Parker (“Plaintiff”) showed up late 
for his deposition, refused to answer certain questions, and then left. In response, 
Defendants moved for sanctions. After receiving briefing and holding a show -cause 
hearing, Magistrate Judge Boyle —to whom this case has been referred for pretrial 
proceedings—issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding that Defendants’ 
motion should be granted. (Doc. 67.) 
Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s objection s to the R&R. (Docs. 70, 
71.) For the following reasons, the objections are overruled and the R&R is adopted. 
BACKGROUND 
 In this action, Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Surprise 
Police Department (“SPD”) and various members of the SPD for, inter alia, “violat[ing] 
the Fourth Amendment by encouraging and enacting an unjustifiable arrest leading to an 
unfair[] court warrant” and violating the Fifth Amendment via an “unlawful seizure.” 
(Doc. 14 at 1-4.) The action has been referred to Judge Boyle for all pretrial proceedings. 

 
- 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 
 
(Doc. 2.) 
 On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m. 
at defense counsel’s office. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff arrived approximately two hours late, then 
refused to answer certain questions before leaving. (Doc. 67 at 1.) Afterward, Defendants 
filed a motion for sanctions. (Doc. 54.) The motion sought the dism issal of Plaintiff’s 
lawsuit, “or, at the very minimum, . . . an award of attorney’s fees.” (Id. at 1.) 
Upon receipt of the motion, Judge Boyle scheduled a show -cause hearing for 
February 14, 2022. (Doc. 55.) After Plaintiff filed various briefs (Docs. 57, 58, 61 -64) 
and following the hearing (Doc. 65), Judge Boyle issued a n R&R concluding that 
Defendants’ motion should be granted and that Defendants should be awarded the 
reasonable costs and fees associated with the failed deposition and with their efforts to 
pursue sanctions. (Doc. 67.) The R&R explains: “[T]he undisputed facts show that 
Plaintiff has intentionally delayed and frustrated Defendants’ ability to fairly conduct 
Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff’s failure to timely appear at the deposition, followed by his 
abrupt departure less than an hour later, essentially amount to failing to appear at the 
deposition at all.” (Id. at 7.) 
On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. (Docs. 70, 71.) 
Plaintiff’s objections read, in their entirety, as follows: 
The opposing counsel ultimately contradicts themselves trying to retaliate 
out of frustration about their position within the case. It is fact that the 
deposition recorded was full of discovery questions which were claimed to 
be ‘preliminary’ when all the information was irrelevant based on previous 
objections submitted by the Plaintiff. (Any syntactic or grammatical error 
made by the pro se shall be logically excused by Fed.R. 52. and Fed.R 61.) 
They barely have purpose in u sing my deposition other than for 
malicious/manipulative intent (which can be deduced from them not using 
Trinitee’s deposition who is just as valuable as a witness as he.) The Plaintiff 
objects the sanction since they were also granted another day to ask specific 
testimonial questions which should be well -prepared. The time spent was 
wasted by opposing counsel which is impeding a speedily case review. This 
further delay could be viewed as a waste of time since there is a huge push 
for discovery without any validity as to why they would need any 
information that has already been given or that could be publicly found. The 

 
- 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 
 
Plaintiff is not responsible for the defenses’ expenses unless ordered since 
they do not pay his. In conclusion, the Plaintiff shall a ttend a prompt 
deposition to proceed. 
(Id.) 
 On March 1, 2022, Defendants submitted a supplement in which they calculated the 
costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the failed deposition and the sanctions request. 
(Doc. 72.) The total sum requested is $7,650.10. (Id. at 1.) 
 Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled for March 16, 2022. (Doc. 69.) The record 
reflects that Plaintiff once again showed up late and once again was disruptive after he 
arrived, which prompted defense counsel to call Judge Bo yle’s chambers for emergency 
relief. (Doc. 73.) As Judge Boyle summarized in a minute entry issued following the 
telephonic conference: 
The Court was informed that Plaintiff brought and played a Playstation 
during his deposition, which began earlier thi s morning. The parties 
appeared over the telephone for a discussion with the Court. Plaintiff agrees 
that he brought a Playstation and a 32 -inch monitor to his deposition. He 
agreed he was playing the game “passively” during the deposition. . . . The 
Court finds the use of a Playstation during a deposition is both sufficiently 
disruptive and disrespectful that Plaintiff is ordered to unplug the game, place 
it aside, and not use the Playstation, book, magazine or phone during the 
remainder of the deposition. Plaintiff is also ordered to comply with requests 
from the court reporter regarding not interrupting or talking over Defendant’s 
counsel during the deposition. This is required so the court reporter can 
adequately record the proceeding. Plaintiff will submit to the deposition until 
no later than 4:15PM today. If a break occurs, it shall extend the deposition 
by the length of the break. The Court notes that Plaintiff also agreed he was 
15 minutes late for his sch eduled deposition. He stated that his phone sent 
him to an incorrect location near a golf course, which caused his delay. 
(Id.) 
DISCUSSION 
I. Standard Of Review 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a magistrate judge is empowered to “hear and 
determine” non -dispositive motions and to issue “proposed findings of fact and 

 
- 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 
 
recommendations for the disposition” of dispositive motions. Id. The former are reviewed 
under the deferential “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard while the latter are 
reviewed de nov o. Id. See generally Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco , 951 
F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). 
Although an order awarding attorneys’ fees as a discovery sanction is usually 
considered non -dispositive,1 the District of Arizona’s Local Rules of Civi l Procedure 
provide that, “[i]n any motion in which the parties are seeking the sanctions provided for 
in Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), or (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the Magistrate Judge 
is inclined to grant such requests the Magistrate Judge shall be limited to filing a report and 
recommendation with the District Court.” LRCiv 72.2(a)(1). Accordingly, the order 
resolving Defendants’ motion was issued as an R&R rather than as a final order. This 
means that Plaintiffs’ objections are reviewed de novo. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 
Even so, a district judge is not required to review any portion of an R&R to which 
no specific objection has been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) 
(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s 
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party 
objects to those findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 
2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 
recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, a district judge 
need not review an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling 
v. Ryan, 2013 WL 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“Because de novo review of an entire R 
& R would defeat the efficiencies intended by Congress, a general objection ‘has the same 
effect as would a failure to object.’”) (citations omitted); Haley v. Stewart , 2006 WL 
1980649, *2 (D. Ariz. 2006) (“[G]eneral objections to an R & R are tantamount to no 
objection at all.”). 
 
1 See S. Gensler, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary, Rule 
72, at 447-48 (2022) (“Some cases have made blanket statements suggesting that discovery 
sanctions are always nondispositive. The prevailing view, however, is that a motion for 
discovery sanctions under Rule 37 can be either dispositive or nondispositive depending 
on the sanction the magistrate judge chooses, and the magistrate judge’s decision is 
reviewed accordingly.”). 

 
- 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 
 
II. Analysis 
 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and fully agrees with its 
findings and conclusions. Plaintiff made a mockery of his deposition by showing up late, 
refusing to answer questions, and then abruptly leaving. Sanctions are easily warranted in 
this circumstance, and Plaintiff’s objections do nothing to alter this conclusion. 
 The Court has further reviewed Defendants’ supplement of March 1, 2022, which 
establishes that Defendants incurred a total of $7,650.10 in recoverable costs and attorneys’ 
fees. (Doc. 72.) The Court is satisfied with Defendants’ showing on this point. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that: 
(1) Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Docs. 70, 71) are overruled. 
(2) The R&R (Doc. 67) is adopted. 
(3) Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 54) is granted. 
(4) Plaintiff is ordered to pay $7,650.10 to Defendants . Payment is due within 
14 days of the issuance of this order. Failure to timely satisfy this obligation may result in 
the imposition of additional sanctions. 
 Dated this 17th day of March, 2022. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight