Cadet v. Alliance Nursing Staffing of New York, Inc.

Background

Sherly Cadet filed two letter motions. The first sought permission to file a motion to amend her May 4, 2021 complaint. The second sought a protective order preventing Alliance Nursing Staffing of New York, Inc. from taking her deposition. The opinion states that Cadet was proceeding without a lawyer.

Cadet proposed amendments concerning the race of a care manager, constructive discharge, the date of her termination, certain claims under Section 1981, intentional infliction of emotional distress based on defense counsel’s access to her social security number, and retaliation related to that access.

Motion to Amend

The court denied Cadet’s request for leave to file a motion to amend. It found the request untimely because the deadline for amended pleadings was February 28, 2023, while Cadet’s request came later. The court said Cadet knew, or could have known, much of the information supporting the proposed amendments when she filed the complaint or during the following two years.

The court also found the proposed amendments futile, meaning they would not survive a motion to dismiss. In particular, it said the claims involving Cadet’s social security number were frivolous, would not satisfy the demanding standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and were unrelated to the claims already in the complaint. The court further noted that discovery was nearing completion and that an existing confidentiality order covered social security numbers and limited disclosure of confidential information to purposes of the litigation.

Protective Order and Deposition

The court denied Cadet’s motion for a protective order. It explained that Alliance was entitled to take Cadet’s deposition regardless of her answers to certain written questions. Citing Local Civil Rule 33.3, the court said depositions are preferred over interrogatories when they are the more practical way to obtain the information sought. Alliance was not required to serve additional interrogatories instead of taking the deposition.

The court acknowledged Cadet’s concerns about the emotional effect of a deposition but concluded that her status as an unrepresented party did not, by itself, show that Alliance was pursuing the deposition for an improper purpose. The court expressed confidence that the parties could arrange a mutually workable time and format.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied both motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 69 and 70. The court warned that if Cadet continued filing patently untimely, frivolous, or procedurally improper motions, it might dismiss the case for failure to follow court orders.