Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Background

Akobi Schuster sued Charter Communications, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and related federal, state, and city law. He alleged that a cable box malfunctioned while he was working as a cable technician, after which he experienced anxiety attacks and did not return to work. His complaint asserted hostile work environment, failure to reasonably accommodate his disability, and wrongful termination claims.

During discovery, Charter scheduled Schuster’s deposition for August 30, 2018. The court found that Schuster had received notice of the date and time, had been reminded of the deposition by his lawyers, and had met with counsel to prepare. He nevertheless did not attend. He also failed to attend a September 12, 2018 court conference and did not comply with multiple court orders directing him to explain his absences and his delay in responding to the request for sanctions. Schuster’s lawyers withdrew, and Schuster proceeded without a lawyer.

Charter moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. It requested dismissal with prejudice, reimbursement of deposition-related expenses and attorney’s fees, and a filing injunction requiring Schuster to obtain court permission before filing matters concerning his employment with Charter, his remedies against Charter, or Charter’s defense of his claims. Schuster attributed his absences partly to homelessness and disputed his former lawyers’ accounts of the notice he received. He also made allegations of an improper relationship between his former counsel and Charter’s counsel, which both lawyers denied.

Rule 37 dismissal

Rule 37 permits sanctions when a party fails, after proper notice, to attend that party’s deposition or fails to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. Possible sanctions include dismissal. The court considered four factors: whether Schuster acted willfully, whether lesser sanctions would work, how long the noncompliance lasted, and whether he had been warned about possible sanctions.

The court found willfulness based on Schuster’s failure to attend the deposition and conference, his failure to explain his conduct as ordered, and his continued refusal to accept responsibility despite repeated opportunities to respond. The court concluded that lesser sanctions would not be effective because Schuster continued to disobey orders and make what it characterized as baseless allegations. The court also found that his noncompliance lasted more than seven months and that he had received clear warnings, including the show-cause order, that dismissal and a filing injunction were possible.

The court therefore concluded that dismissal with prejudice was warranted even though Schuster was proceeding without a lawyer. The dismissal was imposed as a sanction for discovery and court-order violations; the court did not decide the merits of Schuster’s disability-discrimination claims.

Monetary sanctions

Charter requested $569.50 for the court reporter and videographer, $21,853.95 in attorney’s fees for preparing for the deposition, and $1,846.75 in attorney’s fees for attending the deposition and the September 12 conference. The court denied the request for monetary sanctions. Although Schuster had not formally requested permission to proceed without paying court fees, he reported homelessness, financial instability, and housing instability. The court concluded that he likely could not pay the requested amounts and that monetary sanctions were therefore inappropriate. The court also relied on Charter’s representation that dismissal with prejudice would satisfy its request for relief.

Filing injunction

The court held that federal courts have inherent authority to restrict filings as a sanction for bad-faith abuse of the judicial process. It considered Schuster’s history of litigation, his motive, his status as a self-represented litigant, the unnecessary expense and burden he caused, and whether other sanctions would be adequate.

The court found that these factors supported an injunction. It relied on Schuster’s prior actions and complaints, his conduct during this case, his failure to comply with court orders, and his repeated allegations against his former counsel and Charter’s counsel. The court determined that a broad prohibition on all filings would be improper, but that a narrower restriction was justified.

The injunction bars Schuster, without first obtaining leave from the court, from filing in any tribunal an action, motion, petition, complaint, or request for relief relating to or arising from: (1) the cable-box incident, Charter’s alleged response to that incident, or Schuster’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration claims; or (2) Charter’s conduct in defending Schuster’s previous actions, when the filing alleges wrongdoing by a person or entity that encountered Schuster during this federal litigation. Any request for permission must use the caption “Request for Permission to File under Filing Injunction” and must be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit with the proposed filing.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Charter’s motion for sanctions. It dismissed Schuster’s complaint with prejudice, denied monetary sanctions, and imposed the specified filing injunction. The injunction does not prevent Schuster from appealing the opinion and order, although the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed the Clerk to send the order to Schuster and close the case. Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, signed the opinion and order.