First Impression Technologies LLC v. Wireless Guardian Incorporated et al

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
First Impression Technologies LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Wireless Guardian Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00885-PHX-DJH
ORDER
On June 6, 2026, Plaintiff First Impression Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Renewed Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (Doc. 68) against pro se Defendant
Dwayne Ratliff (“Defendant”), stating that Defendant has still failed to serve his initial
disclosures or respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendant has not filed a response
to Plaintiff’s Motion.
This case, over the last several months, has devolved into a constant struggle
between Plaintiff and Defendant as to Defendant’s lack of disclosures and productions,
lack of communication, and the lingering specter of Defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Previously, on April 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Court Intervention to Resolve
Failures of Defendant Dwayne Ratliff to Cooperate and Comply with Discovery
Obligations” (Doc. 61), which the Court denied without prejudice as it was not in
compliance with the Court’s discovery dispute procedure. However, the Motion alerted
the Court that Defendant may have been in the process for filing for bankruptcy, and
therefore on April 10, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to “meet and confer as to the
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 69 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 4

- 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
effect of Defendant Ratliff’s bankruptcy proceedings on this case within seven (7) days of
this Order and file a Status Report with the Court as to the same.” (Doc. 62 at 2).
Despite this deadline, Plaintiff did not file a Status Report until April 23, 2026. (Doc. 63).
Therein, Plaintiff explained that Defendant told counsel to contact his bankruptcy attorney.
When counsel did so, Defendant’s bankruptcy attorney advised that he would be initiating
bankruptcy proceedings on Defendant’s behalf on or after May 15, 2026. In the Status
Report, Plaintiff requested leave to file a discovery motion after counsel’s unsuccessful
attempts to confer with Defendant. (Id.)
On April 27, 2026, the Court ordered that “Defendant must immediately respond
to Plaintiff’s requests and show cause as to why sanctions should not issue against him” by
May 8, 2026. (Doc. 64 at 2). The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel if
Defendant failed to respond. (Id.) When no response was docketed on May 8, Plaintiff
filed its Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (Doc. 65). A delay in docketing later
showed that Defendant indeed filed a Response on May 8. (See Doc. 66). In his Response,
Defendant said he had “not intentionally disregarded discovery obligations or any directive
of this Court” but has instead “been focused on preparing the bankruptcy filing, which
Defendant believes directly related to the substantive basis of the claims asserted in this
action.” (Doc. 66 at 1). Plaintiff expected his personal bankruptcy would be filed “very
shortly.” (Id.).
In light of these circumstances, and due to the receipt of Defendant’s timely
Response, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions
(Doc. 65) but ordered Defendant to nonetheless “make all initial disclosures and fully
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests by May 28, 2026. Failure to do so will preclude
Defendant from using any undisclosed material in his defense.” (Doc. 67 at 2). Defendant
was further instructed that if he instigated bankruptcy proceedings he must immediately
notify the Court. (Id. at 2–3).
Plaintiff renewed its Motion to Compel and for Sanctions on June 6, stating that
Plaintiff still has not made initial disclosures, responded to discovery requests, or provided
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 69 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 4

- 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
a notice of bankruptcy. Indeed, the Court has not been notified of Defendant’s bankruptcy
proceedings, so it will assume none have begun. By all accounts, Defendant appears to be
in direct violation of multiple Court Orders and has still, according to Plaintiff, failed to
comply with his discovery obligations. The Court will order Defendant to show cause why
sanctions, including Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees, should not be assessed against
him. Defendant shall also show cause why his Answer should not be stricken. Staniforth
v. Total Wealth Mgmt., Inc., 2022 WL 774733, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2022) (“A defendant’s
answer may be stricken when the defendant persistently fails to participate in the action.”).
Defendant has demonstrated a disdain for responsibilities in this action and a lack of respect
for the Court’s Orders. His representations that his personal bankruptcy proceedings will
be initiated “shortly” do not excuse his repeated failures to comply with Court orders or
the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
Lastly, at this time, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Judgment
against Defendants Wireless Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC (Doc. 59).
The Court denied this Motion on April 2, 2026, without prejudice because Plaintiff failed
to address any of the Eitel factors. (Doc. 60 at 2). To date, Plaintiff has not renewed its
motion. Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[The Ninth Circuit]
has consistently held that the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify
a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the
failure.”). Plaintiff is reminded of its obligation to diligently pursue this litigation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel and Request for
Sanctions (Doc. 68) is GRANTED in part. Defendant Ratliff must fully respond to
discovery requests and produce initial disclosures by July 2, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by July 2, 2026, Defendant Ratliff must show
cause as to why sanctions, including Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, should not be assessed
against him. He shall also show cause why his Answer should not be stricken.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of this Order, Plaintiff
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 69 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 4

- 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
must either file a status report or renewed motion for default judgment against Defendants
Wireless Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC in compliance with the Court’s
April 2, 2026 Order. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of Defendants Wireless
Guardian, Inc. and Southeastern Wireless, LLC for failure to prosecute.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00885-DJH Document 69 Filed 06/26/26 Page 4 of 4