Sultana v. Endeavor Air

Background

The court considered three motions: Endeavor Air’s motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order; Marc Saeed Sultana’s motion for more time to comply with the court’s December 15, 2022 discovery order; and Sultana’s request for court-appointed counsel and a stay of the proceedings.

The December 15 order required Sultana to provide initial disclosures, fully answer specified interrogatories, fully respond to specified requests for production, sign related authorizations, and pay Endeavor Air a $350 sanction. The order set January 5, 2023, as the compliance deadline and allowed Endeavor Air additional discovery after Sultana produced the required information. Endeavor Air asserted that Sultana had not completed the required discovery, signed the authorizations, paid the sanction, or appeared for his deposition.

Sultana attributed his delays to medical problems, including illness beginning in September 2022 and COVID-19 around Thanksgiving 2022. He requested more time to comply, and separately asked the court to appoint counsel and pause the case until counsel was appointed. Endeavor Air opposed the requested stay and took no position on appointment of counsel.

Scheduling order

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause. The court found that Endeavor Air had shown good cause for some change because it had been diligent in attempting to meet the existing deadlines and Sultana’s delays had prevented the planned discovery schedule from proceeding. The court also found that Sultana would not be prejudiced by changing the schedule because he had requested a six-month extension himself.

The court rejected Endeavor Air’s proposal to leave several deadlines dependent on when Sultana completed his obligations or when future events occurred. Instead, it granted in part and denied in part Endeavor Air’s motion to amend the scheduling order and set fixed dates:

The court ordered that an amended pretrial scheduling order would be issued.

Request for more time to comply with the discovery order

The court applied the standard for “excusable neglect,” which allows a court to extend an expired deadline when the failure to act resulted from circumstances such as mistake, carelessness, or events beyond the party’s control. The court considered the length and effect of the delay, the reasons for it, the extent of prejudice, and whether Sultana acted in good faith.

The court found that Sultana’s neglect was not excusable. It emphasized that he had already been late with initial disclosures and discovery responses before the December 15 order, failed to meet the January 5 deadline, and waited nearly eight more weeks before requesting an extension. The court also found that Sultana had received an electronic notice of the December 15 order and its deadlines. Although the court expressed sympathy for his medical issues, it found his explanations unconvincing and concluded that he had not shown good-faith compliance.

The court therefore denied Sultana’s motion for additional time. However, it set a final deadline of April 14, 2023, for Sultana to provide initial disclosures; fully answer Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13; fully respond to Requests for Production Nos. 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20; execute and return the related authorizations; and pay Endeavor Air $350. The court stated that it would not entertain further requests for extensions to comply with that order.

Request for counsel and stay

The court explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel, although a court may request an attorney to represent someone unable to afford one. Relevant considerations include the complexity of the facts and law, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, and whether the evidence is likely to conflict.

The court found that Sultana’s case was not shown to be factually or legally complex and that he had demonstrated an ability to litigate it. The court noted that he had filed documents and motions, communicated with the court, presented detailed allegations, attended a 6.75-hour settlement conference, and showed a basic understanding of court procedure. The court therefore concluded that appointment of counsel was not warranted at that time.

The court denied without prejudice Sultana’s request for court-appointed counsel and his request for a stay pending appointment of counsel. The order also stated that failure to comply with the order or prior consistent orders could lead to sanctions or other remedies, including possible dismissal or default judgment.

Disposition

The order addressed scheduling, discovery compliance, and representation. It did not decide the merits of Sultana’s underlying claims or Endeavor Air’s pending motion to dismiss.