Lee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Background

This order addressed two motions: Erika Lee’s motion to reopen discovery and obtain permission to seek default judgment against Jose Rosado and David Needham, and Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s motion for discovery sanctions against Lee. Lee filed her motion after Delta indicated that it intended to move for summary judgment on her remaining claims.

Lee’s Motion to Reopen Discovery

The court denied Lee’s motion to reopen discovery. Discovery had closed, although the court had extended the deadline to allow Delta to obtain certain discovery from Lee. Lee argued that discovery should be reopened because Delta’s supplemental responses identified Henrietta Archie as a possible defense witness. The court found that Lee had known about Archie throughout the litigation: Lee herself had previously identified Archie as someone with relevant information and as a possible trial witness, and Lee had testified about Archie during her deposition. The court concluded that discovery from or about Archie was foreseeable and that Lee had not been diligent in pursuing it. The court also found that further delay would prejudice Delta, which was preparing a summary-judgment motion.

Lee’s Motion for Permission to Seek Default Judgment

The court also denied Lee’s motion for leave to file for default judgment against Rosado and Needham. A court cannot enter default judgment against a defendant over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction. The court found that Lee had not properly served either defendant because each summons was unsigned by the Clerk of Court and lacked the court’s seal. The court determined that these defects made service invalid and that the time for service had long expired. Because Rosado and Needham had not been properly served, they had no obligation to appear, and any motion for default judgment would be futile.

Delta’s Discovery-Sanctions Motion

Delta sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 based on Lee’s late disclosure of Dr. Robins, or possibly “Antonella,” as a medical provider who treated her for alleged emotional distress. Delta requested dismissal of the action or, alternatively, exclusion of Lee’s emotional-distress damages.

The court found that Lee had violated a February 4, 2025 order requiring her to identify all medical providers connected to her claimed physical or psychological injuries. The court also found that Lee had repeatedly represented that Dr. Shah and Dr. Michaels were her only relevant medical providers, including in a verified discovery response and in two deposition sessions. Lee later disclosed Dr. Robins and Antonella and changed one deposition answer. The court found that her noncompliance was willful and in bad faith.

The court concluded that dismissal would be too drastic and that barring all emotional-distress damages would be unduly punitive. It therefore granted Delta’s sanctions motion in part. Lee was precluded from offering any medical testimony or evidence from any medical provider—including Drs. Robins, Shah, and Michaels—to support her emotional-distress damages claim. The court stated that this limitation effectively restricted her to “garden variety” emotional-distress damages, which generally rely on the plaintiff’s own testimony rather than medical corroboration.

Summary-Judgment Schedule and Disposition

The court allowed Delta to proceed with its intended summary-judgment motion. It ordered Delta to file the motion by September 4, 2025; Lee to file her opposition by October 6, 2025; and Delta to file any reply by October 21, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at Dockets 153 and 154.