Lee v. Katz
15-3423-cv
| 2d Cir. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Linda A. Lee, pro se, sued the Connecticut Department of Children and Families and Commissioner Joette Katz under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.
- The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice for Lee’s persistent failure to comply with discovery.
- Dismissal was entered on September 30, 2015 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and 41(b).
- The district court found Lee repeatedly warned about her discovery obligations and the consequences of noncompliance, yet she gave unsupported reasons for not complying.
- The court characterized Lee’s noncompliance as willful and intractable, lasting from January 2014 through September 2015 despite multiple extensions.
- Lee appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit, which reviewed the sanction for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion under Rules 37/41 | Lee contested the dismissal and argued against the sanction (generally denied noncompliance basis) | Defendants argued dismissal was justified by Lee’s repeated, willful failure to comply with discovery and court orders | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; dismissal appropriate due to willful, prolonged noncompliance and warnings |
| Whether lesser sanctions would have been sufficient | Lee implied lesser measures should be used | Defendants argued lesser sanctions had been tried (extensions) and would not be effective given willfulness | Held: court reasonably found lesser sanctions would not suffice given Lee’s intractability |
| Whether Lee’s noncompliance was willful or excusable | Lee offered reasons for noncompliance, which she maintained | Defendants argued Lee’s reasons were unsupported and noncompliant conduct was willful | Held: district court reasonably found noncompliance willful and unsupported |
| Whether procedural safeguards and warnings were provided before dismissal | Lee argued process was inadequate (implicitly) | Defendants pointed to repeated warnings and deadlines imposed by the court | Held: district court provided warnings; factor supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard and factors for dismissal as a sanction under Rule 37)
- Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for dismissal under Rule 41 and abuse-of-discretion review)