Sapp v. City of New York

Background

Juandisha Sapp filed this civil-rights action under a federal law known as Section 1983 on January 29, 2024. The defendants included the City of New York, six New York City Police Department officers or employees, three employees of the City’s Administration for Children’s Services, an officer employed by the City’s Emergency Medical Services, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The opinion states that the ten City employees were sued in their individual capacities.

The defendants’ counsel reported that Sapp had repeatedly failed to confirm or attend a deposition. Sapp’s lawyer explained that Sapp had been placed in temporary housing, lost her job, had her phone disconnected, and had health issues that made her difficult to reach. The court extended the discovery deadline and ordered that Sapp appear for a deposition by May 2, 2025, warning that failure to appear would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the order.

Sapp did not appear by that deadline, and the court extended the deposition deadline again to June 20, 2025. Her lawyer then moved to withdraw, reporting that Sapp had stopped communicating, had failed to appear for the deposition, and could not be located despite repeated efforts. The court granted the withdrawal motion on July 2, 2025. It told Sapp that she could retain a lawyer or proceed without one, but required her either to provide the court with an address and explain why the case should not be dismissed or to have a new lawyer enter the case and respond to the defendants’ dismissal request by August 4, 2025.

Defendants’ Request for Dismissal

The defendants sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and under Rule 37 as a sanction for failing to appear for a deposition. After the August 4 deadline passed, the defendants asked the court to act on their dismissal request. The opinion states that Sapp did not respond to that request or to the defendants’ later letter, and that three months had passed since the July 2 order without a response.

Court’s Analysis

The court described dismissal for failure to prosecute as a harsh remedy reserved for extreme situations. It considered five factors:

1. Significant delay. Sapp had not appeared for a deposition or committed to a future deposition date. The discovery deadlines had been extended several times, and Sapp also failed to comply with the July 2 order.

2. Notice of possible dismissal. The court had warned Sapp that failing to appear for the deposition or failing to comply with the July 2 order would result in dismissal. The July 2 order stated that the case would be over and Sapp would recover nothing if she failed to comply.

3. Prejudice to the defendants. The court found that continued delay was likely to prejudice the individual defendants because the allegations remained unresolved, memories could fade, and Sapp had been inaccessible for months. The court also noted that the complaint used group allegations against the defendants.

4. Court administration and opportunity to be heard. The court recognized Sapp’s right to have an opportunity to present her case and stated that it had attempted to accommodate her needs. It also stated that her circumstances had required the court to devote time that could otherwise have gone to other litigants.

5. Effectiveness of lesser sanctions. The court concluded that monetary or evidentiary sanctions would not likely bring Sapp into compliance because earlier warnings had not done so. It considered dismissal without prejudice, which would generally permit refiling, but found that option inappropriate because the case was at an advanced stage: document production was complete and multiple depositions of individual defendants had occurred.

Ruling and Additional Orders

Judge P. Kevin Castel dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to appear for the deposition as ordered. The opinion does not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations. The court ordered the defendants and their lawyers to preserve documents relating to the action, including documents and deposition transcripts, for fourteen months from the date of the order. It also stated that Sapp could move for relief from the dismissal within one year under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), based on grounds including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF 60.