Campbell v. Columbia University
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-10164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Campbell v. Columbia University, Judge Broderick denied Campbell’s discovery and default requests and excused Columbia from responding to future filings unless ordered.
Campbell and Columbia University; the order denied Campbell’s discovery and default requests and set rules for Columbia’s responses to future filings and emails.
What happened
In Campbell v. Columbia University, Jody-Ann Campbell, representing herself, asked the court to require Columbia University to answer her written questions and also asked for a default judgment. Columbia opposed the discovery request and sought limits based on Campbell’s filings and a pause in discovery.
The court denied Campbell’s request to compel discovery because the parties had not held the required conference or established a discovery plan. It also denied her request for a default because Columbia had responded with a motion to dismiss. The court directed Columbia not to respond to future filings or emails from Campbell unless the court ordered a response.
Judge Broderick allowed Campbell to file one opposition to Columbia’s pending motion to dismiss by March 21, with Columbia’s reply due March 28. He warned that continued abusive or insulting language could lead to sanctions, including restrictions on Campbell’s electronic filing privileges.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Columbia University · No. 1:22-cv-10164
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Jody-Ann Campbell, acting without a lawyer, moved to compel The Trustees of the University of Columbia in the City of New York, referred to in the opinion as Columbia University, to respond to her interrogatories. Columbia opposed that motion and asked the court to restrict Campbell’s filing privileges and stay discovery based on what Columbia described as Campbell’s misuse of the docket. Campbell opposed Columbia’s request. Campbell also moved for entry of a default.
Discovery motion
The court denied Campbell’s motion to compel as premature. No case-management or discovery plan had been entered, and the parties had not held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court relied on Rule 26(d)(1), which generally bars a party from seeking discovery before that conference.
Default request
The court also denied Campbell’s request for entry of a default. Under Rule 55(a), the clerk may enter a default only when a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. The court found that Columbia had responded to Campbell’s complaint with a procedurally proper motion to dismiss, so default was improper.
Filing and communications
The court directed that, going forward, Columbia University need not respond to further filings by Campbell unless the court ordered a response. Columbia also need not respond to Campbell’s emails to chambers, and the court stated that it would not order relief based on requests made by email. The opinion describes Campbell as having filed many letters and motions, repeatedly emailed chambers contrary to the judge’s individual rules, and used increasingly unprofessional, improper, and abusive language toward opposing counsel.
The court cautioned that continued abusive language could result in sanctions, including restrictions on Campbell’s electronic filing privileges. The court did not state that it was imposing such a filing restriction at that time. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Doc. 54.
Pending motion to dismiss
The court clarified that Columbia University had filed only one motion to dismiss and that the court’s decision on that motion was still pending. Campbell was permitted to file a single opposition brief by March 21, and Columbia University could file a reply by March 28.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.