FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON, JR.; MARIBEL ECHON; JUSTIN ECHON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, No. 19-1099 v. (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-03420-PAB-NYW) (D. Colo.) WILLIAM SACKETT; LEONIDA SACKETT, Defendants - Appellants. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The Echons (Plaintiffs) sued the Sacketts (Defendants) amid a bitter dispute between families. Defendants, appearing pro se in district court, failed to comply with several of the court’s discovery orders. Consequently, the district court imposed sanctions on Defendants by deeming certain facts established at summary judgment. At trial, the district court also allowed Plaintiffs to question Defendants about their wealth over Defendants’ relevance objections. Plaintiffs obtained a significant jury verdict. Defendants now appeal the district court’s imposition of sanctions and * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. evidentiary rulings. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I. Plaintiffs sued Defendants in federal court for violations of Colorado and federal law, including the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants forced them to perform unpaid labor on Defendants’ farm and rental properties after they immigrated to the United States from the Philippines. Defendants, who claim to be functionally illiterate, are a seventy-nine-year-old farmer with a third-grade education (Mr. Sackett), and his wife (Mrs. Sackett), a non-native English speaker. Although Defendants had the means to retain counsel, they decided counsel was not “necessary” and chose to proceed pro se.1 The magistrate judge managing discovery in this case repeatedly warned Defendants that they would be held to same rules as any represented party. Importantly, she told Defendants that they must adhere to all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) and that their pro se status did not excuse them from responding to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. But Defendants did not heed the magistrate judge’s warnings. After Defendants repeatedly failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, Plaintiffs filed three motions to compel discovery. As a sanction, the magistrate judge recommended deeming factual allegations established as true if Defendants failed to 1 Plaintiffs, on the other hand, had a team of lawyers propounding discovery requests on Defendants. 2 provide related evidence in response to properly propounded discovery requests. The magistrate judge, however, recommended denial of Plaintiffs’ request for dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Defendants did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (R&R), which the district court adopted after finding no clear error. The district court implemented this sanction through the magistrate judge’s summary judgment R&R, which identified five specific facts that the court deemed established after examining the record.2 Defendants did not object to this R&R either, which the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals