Buigas v. LM Waste Servs. Corp.
Buigas v. LM Waste Servs. Corp.
2020 WL 12698603 (D.P.R. 2020)
May 21, 2020
Dominguez, Daniel R., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel discovery of criminal history, allowing them to question the Plaintiff as to his criminal history but keeping the transcript sealed until the Court determines its admissibility. The Court also allowed the Defendants to proceed with discovery of documents, but denied the Plaintiffs' motion for protective order and motion for reconsideration as premature.
ROBERTO ROCA BUIGAS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LM WASTE SERVICES CORP., et al., Defendants
v.
LM WASTE SERVICES CORP., et al., Defendants
CIVIL NO. 19-1044
United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico
Filed May 21, 2020
Counsel
Andres Saez-Marrero, Lee Sepulvado-Ramos, Carlo Defendini-Diaz, Sepulvado, Maldonado & Couret, San Juan, PR, Anibal J. Nunez-Gonzalez, Nez Gonzlez LLC, Santiago Soler-Martinez, Guaynabo, PR, for Plaintiffs Roberto Roca, Katya Molero.Enrique J. Mendoza-Mendez, Mendoza Law Office, Manuel Borges-Mendez, Borges Law Offices, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Dominguez, Daniel R., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Pending before the Court is Defendants’, LM Waste Services Corp., and Francisco Rivera Fernandez’ Motion to Compel Re: Mr. Roberto Roca Buigas’ Discovery of Criminal History. See Docket No. 60. Plaintiffs, Roberto Roca Buigas and Katya Molero Rabassa submitted their response by way of Motion for Protective Order and for Reconsideration and Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel. See Docket No. 62. The Defendants then filed an Omnibus Motion responding to Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order and reconsideration and replying to Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Compel. See Docket No. 65.
The Defendants are essentially seeking for the Court to allow evidence of Plaintiff, Roberto Roca Buigas’ 18-year-old conviction of perjury and that discovery be allowed as to his criminal history. See Docket No. 60. Although Defendants recognize that the age of the conviction –18 years— “weighs against its admissibility”, they move the Court to find that the particular circumstances of the case at bar warrant said discovery. Id. at 6. According to the Defendants,
In here, all factors (aside the date of the conviction) militate in favor of admittance: crime involved (perjury); importance of witness's testimony (main witness for plaintiffs as to the jurisdictional issue); the impeachment value (great because it is a perjury conviction); centrality of witness's credibility (the jurisdiction issue entails intent, thus, credibility is at issue); similarity (whether witness can testify truthfully).
Docket No. 65 at 3.
Whereas, Plaintiffs assert that although “Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2)[1] makes criminal history generally admissible; however, Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b)[2] limits the admissibility in cases going beyond 10 years. The burden is on the party intending to use it.” Docket No. 62 at 4. Plaintiffs further raise the following arguments in support of their contention that discovery as to Mr. Roca's criminal history is inadmissible and prejudicial:
While Roca is certainly a plaintiff and for jurisdictional purposes parties must be in complete diversity, the Court must remember that Roca and Molero [co-plaintiff] are a married couple that maintain the same domicile. Therefore, concerning factual issues for jurisdictional purposes they are both in the same position to testify as to the majority of these facts. For example, where the family lives, where the children go to school, where they pay taxes, where they have their cares, where they obtain services, where they maintain movable and personal property, and where they hold car and healthcare insurance, among others, are issues that Roca and Molero both can and have testified about. Additionally, their testimony is supported not only by each other's account, but also by documentary evidence.
Id. at 8.
*2 Plaintiffs further seek the Court to reconsider its determination to allow the Defendants to depose Mr. Roca and Ms. Molero. According to Plaintiffs, “Defendants made untimely request for documents upon Plaintiffs. These requests attempted to follow up Plaintiffs’ answers and objections served six months ago to written discovery noticed by Defendants.” Docket No. 62 at 15.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that a determination as to the admissibility or lack thereof of Mr. Roberto Roca Buigas’ criminal history is premature. More importantly, the elements of the offense for which Mr. Roca was charged and eventually convicted for are readily available in the Court's docket system. Thus, in order to move the instant case forward, the Court –exercising its discretion— will allow the Defendant to question Mr. Roca as to his criminal history. However, said part of the transcript is to remain sealed until the Court, in its due course, determines whether such statement will be admissible, should there be a trial in this case. As to the documents that are now being requested by the Defendants, the Court will allow said discovery in the best interest of justice. However, the deposition will remain as scheduled for May 26, 2020. The Court will not allow an untimely request of discovery to delay a deposition that has been ordered to take place on or before May 29, 2020, particularly, since the instant case has been plagued with delays, first from Plaintiffs and now from the Defendants that the Court will not allow any further.
On a final note, Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants are now seeking to obtain documents from non-parties without prior leave of Court and without complying with the applicable rules. See Id. at 12. As the Defendants informed the Court that they shall not move forward with non-parties’ discovery, this matter is now moot.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Re: Mr. Roberto Roca Buigas’ Discovery of Criminal History (Docket No. 60). Mr. Roca is to answer questions relevant to his criminal history and produce related discovery. However, its admissibility or lack thereof will be determined in its due course. Thus, the contents of said part of the deposition and documents that are to be produced related to this matter shall remain sealed until the Court rules otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order is hereby DENIED as premature. The arguments as to the admissibility of Mr. Roca's criminal history may be renewed prior to the Pretrial phase should Plaintiffs deem it necessary. Finally, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 62) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of May, 2020.
Footnotes
Rule 609(a) provides in its pertinent part that “[t]he following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) [...]
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving – or the witness's admitting – a dishonest act or false statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2).
Rule 609(b) provides that a limit on using the evidence after 10 years “applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party a reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).