Ostrander v. PCB Piezotronics, Incorporated
1:10-cv-00217
W.D.N.Y.Apr 24, 2014Background
- Thomas Ostrander sues PCB Piezotronics for ADA discrimination and retaliation after his 2009 termination.
- Court referred case to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for pretrial supervision; discovery disputes followed with multiple orders to respond.
- Ostrander, initially pro se, failed to comply with several discovery orders; a pattern of late or incomplete responses emerged over six months.
- Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended dismissal with prejudice for willful noncompliance; the district court adopted part and denied part, sanctioning but not dismissing entirely.
- The court struck Ostrander’s claims for back pay and front pay, allowing other damages to proceed, and referred the matter back for further proceedings.
- Plaintiff later obtained counsel; the ruling is under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) de novo review for objections to the magistrate’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 37 sanctions justify dismissal or lesser sanctions. | Ostrander argues dismissal or harsher sanctions warranted for noncompliance. | PCB contends dismissal with prejudice or strict sanctions appropriate due to willful noncompliance. | Lesser sanction chosen; not dismissal in full. |
| Whether striking back pay/front pay is proper as a sanction. | Striking back/front pay would be prejudicial and improper. | Striking these items is appropriate given nexus to damages and discovery noncompliance. | Back pay and front pay claims struck; other damages may proceed. |
| Whether Ostrander’s noncompliance was willful and adequately documented. | Noncompliance partly due to illness and transition; attempts to respond made. | Noncompliance was willful and will not be cured by lesser sanctions. | Noncompliance weighed in favor of sanctions but not full dismissal. |
| Whether lesser sanctions are effective given the circumstances. | Lesser sanctions could remedy prejudice without terminating case. | Stronger sanctions necessary to deter delay and prejudice. | Lesser sanctions sufficient; risk of future noncompliance warned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koehl v. Greene, 424 F. App’x 61 (2d Cir. 2011) (harsh Rule 37 sanction requires clear misconduct and specific findings)
- McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1988) (obligation to comply with court orders; pro se status not excuse)
- Agiwal v. Mid Is. Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (factors for sanctions; willfulness and efficacy of lesser sanctions)
- Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 634 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1980) (sanctions should be used only after lesser options fail)
- Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 951 F. Supp. 1039 (WDNY 1997) (front pay may be awarded when earnings calculation is not unduly speculative)