Amador, et al v. Andrews, et al, No. 1:2003cv00650 - Document 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER # 98268. Defendant is ORDERED to appear for deposition within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. If he again fails to appear for deposition within that period of time, I will enter default against him. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/18/09) (rjm) Modified on 11/24/2009 (eef).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT rO[J?T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...................................... X LUCY AP.I.:DCR, e r d l . , o n b e h a l f c'? themselves and a l l o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y sjt ~ l ~ i t e d , P;ainti?is, : 03 C i v . (',G5$ ( K T D ) (iibIC4) -aqainst: .ANGINELL ANDRE;dS, OPILTIO[.l & O R D E R et a 1 . , Defendants. x ...................................... K E V I N THOMA' Flzintiff DUFFY, U . S. D.LT S h e n y r l l Smitti ( " ? l a i n t i f f " ) moved f o r a n o r d e r g r a n t i n 7 d e f a u l t iudqrnent a g a i n s t > + ? e n d a n t D e l r o y Thorpe i n D e f e n d a n t " ) p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 37 ( d ) o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f . l-.ll p < ~ ., , d rocedur-. For t h e f ~ l l ~ w i n e a s o n s , rq I o r d e r Defendant t~ a p p e a r f o r t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f i l i s d e p o s i t i o n w l t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 C : d a y s of t h e d a t e o f c h i s o r d e r . I f Defendant f a i l s t c appear f o r h i s depcsitisn within t h i r t y (30j d a y s , I w i l l enter d e f a u l t a g a i n s t him. Plaintiff b r o u g h t an i n d i v i d u ~ ld a m a g e s a c t i o n a g a i n s t Defencjant, a f c r m e r c o r r e c t i c n o f f i c e r w i t h t h e N e w York Department of C a r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e s ;"DCCS"), f o r t h e harm s h e s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f a l l e g e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t a n d h a r a s s r n P n t w h i l e s h e was a n i n m a t e a t B e d f o r d H i l l s C o r r r c t i d n a l F a c i l i t , ~ . Defendant appeared f ~ hri s d e p o s i t i s > o o n A u q u s t 3 1 , 2006 f o r seven hours, taking 40 minut.es t.o reriiew documents concerning Defendant's interaction with a non-party inmate. Because of the late holr, the parties agree6 t o ad~jomrn Defendant's deposit.ion . for approximately a wee!< until Septeaber 8, 2006. During the c o n t i ~ u a t i a nof his deposi t i o l - I , 2 1 d ' ~, Ir ' . i-f ~pl ans I c revisit L questi.ons regarding Defendant's personal relationshcps with Flair:: if, the non-part-y ir-mace, arid ot.her inmat.es. Before the deposition c o ~ l dresume, DOCS opened an investigation into Defendant based on his testimony at the depositicn. The parties agreed to extend the adjournment until the end of the investigation, which concluded in June 2007 (although Plaintiff did not learn of its conclusion until June 2008). DOCS substantiated aiLegations that Defendant had engaged in an improper relationship with a non-party inmate and provided false information at his deposition in this action. Defendant resigned from DOCS on July 11, 2007. On May 14, 2008, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery requests. Defendant's attorney, Cyrthia Dolan, requested an extension to reply because Defendant had gone missing sometime before May 2008, and she was attempting t o locate him. Plaintiff also attempted to obtain a date for the continuation of Defendant's deposition, but Ms. Dolan responded in a letter dated July 3, 2008, that Defendant's whereabouts were still u n k n o w ~and she had retained a private investigator to locate I . S i n c e r!ien, P l a l n t i f f h a s made : l u m e r c u s u n s u c c e ; s s i u l a t t e m p t s t o s c h e d u l e ::he o n t i n u a t i o n r;f D e f e n d a n t ' s On May 2 8 , 2009, M s . deptosition. D n l a n a n d P l d i n t i f i ' s a t t Q r n e 1 . s met a n d c:)riferr-c-d b y r e l e p k o n e a b r ; ~ l t Dr,fer,c.l.intr? ~..:n~i:edbo:its a n d Plaintiff's i n t e ~ ~ : . : o n t o s e e k a d i i f ? ~ . j l r jil3qmenr uriiier Rule- ?7 ( d ) i f D e f e r ; d a n t ~ o n t i n u e dt o b e l , ! n a v a i l a b l e . Ms. Palan again c ~ r ~ c w l e d g et d a t s h z coul<l. n c t l o c a t z Defermlant a n d a g r z e d i t n wus a p p r o p r i a t e f o r P l a i n t i f f t c a l e r i : the court ti h i s disappearance. On 411gu:;t 1 4 , 20C9, P l a i n t i f f ser'izd M s . 3illan .with d i s ~ o . ~ , e r~ e q u z s t sr e l a t i n g t c p u n i i i . ~ ednrnaqes c l a i m s a g a i n s t y !l%fendant. On Auqust 2 1 , 200'9, Ms. Dolan c o n f i r m e d t h a t s h e s t i l l cdid n o t know t h e w h e r e a b o u t s of D e f e n d a n t a n d c o u l d not. c J l ? t a i n o r p r o r i i ~ c e t!?e r e q u z s t e d d o c u m e n t s . 2C0" On S e p t e m b e r 2 , P l a i n t i f f mover! f o r d e f a u l t u d g r r ~ e n t a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t pursuant 11. t c R u l e 3 7 ((3) . Discussion R u l e 37(d) p r o v i d e s t h a t d h e n a p a r t y f a i l s t o a t t e n d ~ t s owr, d e p l s i t i o n a f t e r b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h p r o p e r n c t i i e , may o r d e r a r a n g e o f s d n c t i o n s , including "rsnderlng a default j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e disobedient p a r t y . " F ; . . T : . P. 37 b ( 2 4 ) i . FLLI. R . C : . P. 3 7 ( d ) ( 3 ) ; I. The e n t r y o f d e f a u l t " i s a h a r s h rer.edy t o be used o n l y I n extreme s i t u a t l o n s , a court finds willfulness, a court bad f a l t ! i , a n d t h e n o n l y when o r ariy f a u l t b1- t h e non- Ar/ibJal v. M;d iompiiant litigant." F.3d 2%, 302 (2d Cir. 2009). Island Morti~.!'crp., 555 While Fule 37 allows for 1e;s harsh remedies, seT:ere sanctlcns may be necessary t? a v o ~ d s;t:~.ition where . L.zurt seems 'ktnc-uraqe dilat bry cactics, !LC, 2rd ~ ~ r r ~ p l i a ~with dl~~:i.lery ice orders . . . come [s] !,lily when the oiicks of i:.;l~:lseland t l ~ r s litigants were agair'st the wall." Sl?ck V. X ~ ~ . s s o9 6 9 F . 2 - i 1 3 1 , 1311 , ( i . 1989) \upt~olding declsion . . to enl:ct- defa.dlt after defendants L ~ I L ~ta appear S ieposition: ; 3t their . Ir cotisidering the passibie range of sanctians, including er1tr.y ,;I: default, :he following far:i~>rs are r-levant: 11) the willfuln-ss of the non-c~)mpllant parEy or the reason for r,~nzompliance;('1 the efficacy of lesser sanctions; ( 3 ) the duration of the period noncornpllancs, and ( 4 1 whether the non-compl;~nt party had been warned of the consequences of noncompiiancr. Aqiwal, 555 F. 3d at 302. .. riere, Defendant agreed to the continuation of tiis deposition k.'ut disappeared a f ~ e rlearning of the ad,~erseoutcome of the D K S i n ~ e s t i g a ~ l o n .Defendant's wiilfulness and bad faith zre eviaent from (1) h18 :allure counsel's and Plalntifi's to rispcnd to his repeated attempts at comlunication; and (2) hls failure to offer any expldnatian for refusing to :orcplete nls deposition or respond to Plaintiff's outstanding discorely requests. Sse i d . at 3 r j 3 . Defendant's counsel pl-.,vide$ r,c>ti-lin.j i , ~ . l t u ~ l s u b s t ; n t i a t e d s p z c u l a t i ~ nt h a t D e l e : - ~ d a n t may haxre b e e n f o r c e ' j t , ~e a v e r h e C o , ~ n t r yo r is s i c k l , \ , somewhere. , 55; l i e u f e i c l v . l~Je?~:f?;cr', 169 F.R.C. 2 F 9 , [ a ] s t h e t?xt IRul? 290 3 ( d ' ,] rrtakes c l e a r , t n e : (L.3.N.y. 396) p;i-t:, h a s f a i l e d t o i p p e a r fclr a i j e p ~ x i ~ i k l l i ~ r~ t!le bllrd-rr c) 2 s w:lr. (" o f d?rr;o:;stratinc; of a s u b s t ~ r l t i d lj u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r h e r zbsenie"!. D c f e n x a n r k.as b e e n n c 7 n - r e s p n n s l v e t o h i s d l s c ' 3 . ~ e r ; : o b l i j d i i o n s ar,d h,;s sta;leci this litigatiori f u ~ well o v e r o n c y e a r . p l o r e o ; ~ t + r , P i a i n t i f f has r c p ~ ? a t u d l : : ..darned f i e f e n d a n t cf t h e cc;nscqusnccs r:f non-c,ymy;iia:lze, seek s a n c t i o n s , i n z l u d i n f g d e f a u l : spsrlfic.iii). that Plaintiff w i l l judgmsrt. T h a t s ~ i d ,w h i l e P l a i n t i f f h a s w a r n e d D e f e n d a n t o f h e r i n t e n t i o r ) t; s e e k s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m , Defendant has n o t y e t b e e n w a r n e d b y the c c u r t t h d t h i s c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e s sarlctionable benavior. R u l r 37 z t > n t a n p l a t c s s c m t j u d i c i a i i r j t e r v t n t i c n between a n o t i c e o f d e p o s i t i o n c ' r d i s r o v r r y r e q u e s t s a n d t h s i r r ~ p o s i t i o no f s d ~ l c t l o n s . See D a v ~ 1Stsel P L V ~ S , d Civ. o f . F r a n c o s t e e l C o r p . v . M / V F;.k r e d i n e , 951 F. 2 d 1357, 1 3 6 4 (7d Z i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . , J u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n " s e r v e s ir, a l e r t t h e c f f e n d i n g p a r t y tc. ttle s e r i c u s n e s s of i t s nc'ricom!?liance and sa!lcti;ns . . . a l s o f a n c t i n s a s a f i n a l !warning t!lat a r e i m , i n o n t , and s p 2 c i f i c a l l y informs t h e r e c a l c l t r a r ~ tp a r t y c o r l c e i n i n g i t s o b l l g a r i o n s . " I d . a t 1365. If Defendant refuses to comply wlth this order, I will he left with nc c h ~ i c ehut t p enter default ~clainst him, as lesser sanctions are unlikely- tg he effective given ?efendantfs repeated and categiiri~al refusal to participotr; a n y further in t.he litigation. 6 : 1 s I : v. I - r r s 734 (2d Cir. li767! ("The Magistrate . Auth., . . . warned Jrnes t n a t defendants might ms.je t c r sanctions, 'because of what [he] construe[d] to be [Jones'] dellberate attempts to delay- a n 3 frustrate the discovery in this zase."'), 825 (1988); . . Bsar, Stearns & cert. denied, 488 1J.S. 'o., 583 F.2d 18, i?) (2d Cir.1978) (re.~~-rsirlq s ~ r i c tcourt's dismlss;il for failure to di prosecute, nsting that "chere had been ns . . . judicial participation indicating that a dismissal might be in the offing"); Sieck, 869 F.2d ~t 1.34 (affirming the granting of a d?fault judgment where, after receiving a warning from the court, defendants consciously absented themselves from sche~<l~led 111. Csnclusion Defendant 1s ORDERED to appear fnr deposition within thirty (30) days of tne date of this order. if he again fails to appear for deposition within that period of time, I will enter default against him. Dated: New York, N.Y.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
