Nagi Quhshi v. The Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Background

This insurance case was removed from New York state court. The court’s case-management plan required the parties to begin discovery promptly and set deadlines for completing fact and expert discovery.

Hartford reported beginning in January 2024 that Quhshi had not served written responses to document requests, interrogatories, and requests to admit. The court repeatedly ordered Quhshi to provide discovery, correct deficient responses, identify documents responsive to each request, and confirm that he had produced all responsive information and documents in his possession. The court extended discovery deadlines several times and warned that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including treating facts as established, barring evidence, awarding fees, or dismissing the case.

Quhshi repeatedly submitted incomplete responses or failed to meet the court’s deadlines. After an April 10, 2024 order required a numbered list of responses and identified responsive documents, Quhshi did not provide the required materials by the deadline. He later argued that he misunderstood the order and that his earlier responses were sufficient. The court rejected that explanation, stating that the order’s instructions were clear. Quhshi later sent additional discovery responses while the sanctions motion was being briefed, but the court held that this belated effort did not erase his earlier noncompliance.

Hartford’s Sanctions Motion

Hartford moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), which permits penalties when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Hartford sought dismissal, or alternatively an order establishing certain facts or preventing Quhshi from presenting evidence about those facts. Hartford also sought attorney’s fees and expenses under Rule 37(b)(2)(C).

The court evaluated the duration of the noncompliance, whether it was willful, whether lesser sanctions would work, and whether Quhshi had been warned about the consequences. It found that Quhshi’s repeated failures were willful because the orders were clear, he understood what they required, and compliance was within his control. The court also found that the violations lasted approximately five months, that Quhshi had received at least three warnings, and that lesser sanctions were unlikely to produce compliance.

Ruling on Dismissal

The court granted Hartford’s request for dismissal under Rule 37. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the dismissal bars refiling the same case. Because dismissal was warranted, the court did not consider Hartford’s alternative request for lesser sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(ii).

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

Rule 37(b)(2)(C) generally requires an award of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by disobedience of a discovery order unless the failure was substantially justified or another circumstance would make an award unjust. The court found that Quhshi had not shown substantial justification or that an award would be unjust.

The court held that Mr. Altman, Quhshi’s attorney, should be responsible for Hartford’s fees and expenses rather than Quhshi. It found no indication that Quhshi himself was responsible for the failures and concluded that he relied on his attorney to comply with discovery obligations.

The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the amount of Hartford’s reasonable fees and expenses for efforts from January through May 2024 to obtain discovery. If they cannot agree, Hartford must submit an opening brief and supporting documentation, followed by any opposition from Mr. Altman and any reply. The court will refer the fee issue to the assigned magistrate judge. The clerk was directed to keep the case open until the fee issue is resolved.