D'Agostino v. Abbott Laboratories 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
Daniel D'Agostino,
Plaintiff,
v.
Abbott Laboratories Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-01367-PHX-SMB
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Fraud
of the Court, Discovery Misconduct, and Spoliation of Evidence (Doc. 188), and Motion
for Leave to Manually File Video Exhibit R in Support of Motions for Terminating
Sanction (Doc. 193). After reading the briefing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions as
untimely.
I. BACKGROUND
Lest it be interpreted that Plaintiff did not have an opportunity during discovery to
hash out issues of sanctionable behavior and inadequate production, the Court recounts the
following history. This is Plaintiff’s eighth motion for sanctions. (Docs. 16, 31, 84, 113,
136, 180, 181, 188.) Plaintiff has filed eight motions to compel. (Docs. 14, 15, 60, 79, 84,
136, 172, 180.) The Court has held six different hearings to address various discovery
disputes in this matter. (Docs. 55, 64, 76, 117, 165, 183.) None of Plaintiff’s motions were
successful. The Court denied all seven previous motions for sanctions. (Docs. 19, 45, 107,
138, 177, 183.) And denied all eight motions to compel. (Docs. 19, 61, 95, 107, 175, 177,
Case 2:23-cv-01367-SMB Document 245 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
183.) The period for further discovery disputes is over.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings the present Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26(g), 30(d)(2), and 37. (Doc. 188 at 2.) Although these rules “do not establish
any express time limits within which a motion for sanctions must be filed, unreasonable
delay may render such a motion untimely.” MGA Ent., Inc. v. Nat’l Prods. Ltd., No. CV
10-07083 JAK SSX, 2012 WL 4052023, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2012) (citation
modified). The Court finds that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed filing this Motion.
Here, the deadline for fact discovery was March 7, 2025 (Doc. 44 at 1.) The Court
extended that deadline twice: first to March 21, 2025 (Doc. 55) then to April 11, 2025
(Doc. 91). The Court denied Plaintiff’s later request to extend this deadline further by an
additional ninety days. (Doc. 107 at 5.) After multiple extensions, Plaintiff then had until
April 28, 2025 to complete non-expert depositions. (Id. at 8.) Like before, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s later request to extend this deadline by an additional six weeks. (Doc. 155.)
Therefore, as Plaintiff acknowledges, discovery closed in spring 2025. (Doc. 188 at 2
(“[F]act discovery closed in the Spring of 2025”), at 5 (“The discovery deadline has
passed.”).)
Plaintiff attempts to establish Defendant’s allegedly sanctionable behavior by citing
information obtained through written discovery prior to the close of fact discovery, during
a discovery dispute hearing, or during depositions that occurred in April 2025. For
example, Plaintiff states he “caught [Defendant] in a lie” during the March 6, 2025
discovery dispute hearing. (Doc. 188 at 9.) Likewise, Plaintiff cites twelve duplicative
emails produced during discovery, which “flood[ed] production” in an attempt to “bury”
incriminatory information. (Id. at 10.) Or Plaintiff states that “[t]hroughout four
depositions (Douglas Taylor, James Martinez, Jim Curcio, and Ashin Soti), Counsel
engaged in a ‘pattern of abuse’ comprising hundreds of improper objections, personal
attacks, and instructions not to answer.” (Id. at 13.) But Plaintiff made these exact
arguments in July 2025 in his motion to continue these depositions for an additional four
Case 2:23-cv-01367-SMB Document 245 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
hours. (Doc. 172.) Notably, the Court denied that motion as untimely because “Plaintiff
waited nearly three months after the limited extension to the discovery deadline for him to
complete his depositions to file the pending Motion.” (Doc. 175.) Plaintiff’s present
Motion is an even more egregious instance of untimeliness.
Plaintiff admits that he did not begin contemplating the present Motion for
Sanctions until he “initiate[d] a comprehensive forensic audit of the entire case record in
November 2025.” (Doc. 188 at 4.) That is seven months after Plaintiff had access to the
foregoing discovery which is the basis of his Motion. Worse yet, Plaintiff did not file the
present Motion until January 20, 2026. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion was ultimately filed nine
months after the close of discovery and he does not give a bona fide reason for this delay.
The interests of resolving “all discovery matters in a timely manner under [a] case
schedule” would not be served “if parties could bring motions for discovery sanctions well
after the allegedly offending conduct and after the discovery cut-off date.” Van Steenwyk
v. Van Steenwyk, No. 2:20-CV-02375-FLA-AFMX, 2022 WL 17193991, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 18, 2022), aff’d, Steenwyk v. Steenwyk, No. 2:20-CV-02375-FLA (AJRX), 2024 WL
6885526 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024). “While the Court might be inclined to exercise
discretion to permit the present motion had Plaintiff shown diligence in bringing it, that is
not situation here.” Id. (denying a motion for sanctions as untimely because it was filed
“well after” all depositions were completed). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff
unduly delayed bringing the present Motion and denies it as untimely.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 188).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Manually
File Video Exhibit R in Support of Motions for Terminating Sanction (Doc. 193).
Dated this 30th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-01367-SMB Document 245 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3