Hunte v. Rushmore Loan Management Services
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-02169
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Hunte v. Rushmore, Judge Karas found dismissal inappropriate, excluded evidence, and set a schedule for Rushmore’s summary-judgment motion after repeated discovery failures.
Esther Hunte, who is proceeding without a lawyer, is subject to limits on the evidence she may use and must respond to Rushmore’s forthcoming motion. Rushmore may file the motion for summary judgment and may not obtain dismissal at this stage.
What happened
In Esther Hunte v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, Esther Hunte, representing herself, alleged that Rushmore violated a federal law governing mortgage servicing. During discovery, she repeatedly failed to provide requested documents and did not make her doctor available for questioning under oath.
Rushmore asked the court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, allow a summary-judgment motion and limit the evidence Hunte could use. The court found that dismissal was not appropriate at this stage because it was not clear that Hunte’s failures were deliberate bad faith. But the court barred her from relying on evidence produced after December 17, 2024, and excluded a letter from Dr. John T. Grigg because she did not make him available for a deposition or show good cause.
Judge Karas allowed Rushmore to file a summary-judgment motion and set deadlines for the parties’ written submissions. The order did not decide whether Hunte’s underlying claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Hunte v. Rushmore Loan Management Services · No. 7:22-cv-02169
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Esther Hunte, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The court had ordered a 90-day discovery period. Rushmore served discovery demands, but Hunte did not fully respond to them despite multiple court directives and warnings that sanctions, including dismissal, could result.
Hunte eventually produced four documents. She later submitted a note from Dr. John T. Grigg stating that she was experiencing physical and mental distress related to her dealings with her bank in New York. Hunte did not produce medical records concerning a specific examination or result, and she did not make Dr. Grigg available for a deposition by the court’s January 29, 2025 deadline. Hunte later explained that eye surgery had affected her ability to comply and expressed concern about placing sensitive medical information in the public record. The court noted that she could ask to have medical information filed under seal.
Requests and legal standard
Rushmore asked the court to dismiss the action because of Hunte’s repeated failures to comply with discovery obligations. Alternatively, Rushmore asked to proceed with a motion for summary judgment and to prevent Hunte from relying on evidence beyond what she had already produced.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits sanctions for unjustified resistance to discovery. Dismissal is a severe remedy reserved for extreme circumstances, and the court stated that dismissal under the rule requires a failure caused by willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Although Hunte had repeatedly failed to follow discovery directives, the court found that it was not clear that her conduct amounted to deliberate bad faith.
Ruling
The court found dismissal inappropriate at this stage. It allowed Rushmore to file a motion for summary judgment instead. The order did not decide the merits of Hunte’s Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claims.
The court also precluded Hunte from supporting her claims with evidence produced after December 17, 2024, consistent with an earlier order. In addition, it precluded her from relying on Dr. Grigg’s December 2024 letter because she did not comply with the order requiring Dr. Grigg’s deposition and did not show good cause for that failure.
Rushmore was ordered to submit its summary-judgment motion by October 25, 2025. Hunte’s response was due November 25, 2025, and Rushmore’s reply was due December 11, 2025.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.