Sample v. The American National Red Cross
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-02005
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Sharonda Sample v. The American National Red Cross, Judge Furman dismissed Sample’s case with prejudice after repeated failures to attend court-ordered discovery.
Sharonda Sample’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, and she was ordered to reimburse the defendants’ reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees related to the missed discovery and dismissal motion. The American National Red Cross, American Red Cross in Greater New York, and ServiceMaster Professional Cleaning Services received judgment in their favor.
What happened
Sharonda Sample v. The American National Red Cross concerned Sample’s claim for damages after an alleged fall at the Red Cross’s headquarters, where she was working as a security guard. The Red Cross and ServiceMaster Professional Cleaning Services asked the court to dismiss the case because Sample repeatedly failed to attend a deposition and an independent medical examination.
The court had previously ordered Sample to complete her deposition and attend the medical examination, and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal. Sample did not appear for two scheduled continuation dates for her deposition, did not attend the medical examination, and did not complete discovery. Her lawyer argued that a lesser penalty would be more appropriate, but acknowledged that Sample had violated multiple court orders.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Sample’s claims with prejudice under the federal rules governing discovery violations and failure to prosecute. The court also ordered Sample to reimburse the defendants for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, related to the missed medical examination, missed deposition, and dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Sample v. The American National Red Cross · No. 1:21-cv-02005
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 6, 2023
Background
Sharonda Sample brought a slip-and-fall case against the American National Red Cross, American Red Cross in Greater New York, and ServiceMaster Professional Cleaning Services. She sought damages for an alleged fall at the Red Cross’s headquarters, where she was working as a security guard.
The case was initially filed in state court and was later removed to the federal court. The court extended the fact-discovery deadline five times, ultimately setting June 6, 2022, as the deadline. Sample began a deposition on May 16, 2022, but the deposition stopped after about four hours when she said she was not feeling well. The court had allowed the deposition to be continued on another date.
Sample’s lawyer, Kenneth Marder, then told the court that Sample had discharged his firm and requested a stay so she could obtain new counsel. The court denied that request without prejudice to a proper motion to withdraw or substitute counsel after discovery ended. Sample did not appear for the deposition continuation scheduled for May 20, 2022. The parties rescheduled it for May 23, but she did not appear then either.
On May 31, 2022, the court ordered Sample to appear for the rest of her deposition by June 9 and to attend an independent medical examination scheduled for June 6. The court warned that failing to appear could result in additional sanctions, including dismissal. It also ordered her to reimburse the defendants $2,353 for expenses connected to the two aborted depositions and related letters.
Sample did not appear for the June 6 medical examination or the June 8 continued deposition. The defendants then moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 37 permits sanctions when a party disobeys a discovery order, including dismissal of the action. It also permits dismissal when a party fails to attend that party’s deposition. Rule 41 permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or a court order.
The court found that Sample had clear notice that failing to attend the deposition and medical examination could result in dismissal. The court also found that her noncompliance had lasted more than seven months and was willful. Her lawyer acknowledged that he had given Sample the court’s orders and warned her that continued violations could lead to dismissal.
The court further found that the violations prejudiced the defendants because they could not complete Sample’s deposition or conduct the medical examination. The violations also interfered with the court’s management of its docket. The court concluded that lesser sanctions were inadequate because it had already imposed financial sanctions and issued an express warning, yet Sample continued not to comply.
Sample’s lawyer argued that dismissal without prejudice, or dismissal conditioned on Sample obtaining new counsel or proceeding without a lawyer, would be more appropriate. The court rejected those alternatives, reasoning that they would reward the conduct that caused the discovery violations.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Sample’s claims with prejudice under Rules 37(b), 37(d), and 41(b). It also ordered Sample to reimburse the defendants for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in connection with the June 6 medical examination, the June 8 deposition, and the dismissal motion. The parties were directed to try to agree on the amount; if they could not, the defendants were directed to submit a detailed accounting. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.