Rodriguez v. Gusman, 974 F.3d 108

Background

Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez, a former lawful permanent resident now in the Dominican Republic, alleges deliberate indifference to serious cardiac symptoms while incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Facility, resulting in a 2012 stroke and partial paralysis.
Rodriguez filed suit in 2015 (initially pro se); the district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred, this Court vacated and remanded, and pro bono counsel thereafter represented Rodriguez and amended the complaint.
After discovery began, Rodriguez was deported on October 3, 2017 and is barred from reentering the U.S. for twenty years absent special permission.
The Magistrate Judge (sua sponte) administratively closed the case in October 2018, citing Rodriguez’s unavailability for depositions, additional medical (Rule 35) examinations, and trial testimony; the district court adopted that order and denied reconsideration.
The Second Circuit granted review to define the proper standard for administrative closure when a plaintiff is unavailable and to decide whether closure was appropriate on the record; it vacated and remanded, holding closure is a last resort and directing further fact development.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Governing standard for administrative closure when plaintiff is unavailable	Closure should not be allowed where alternatives (video testimony, remote depositions, local medical exams) suffice	Closure justified because plaintiff’s deportation makes discovery and trial impracticable	Administrative closure is a last resort; permissible only when alternatives are virtually impossible or so impractical they significantly interfere with court operations or unreasonably burden the opposing party
Must plaintiff appear in person at trial?	Rodriguez can testify by videoconference; pro bono counsel can prosecute in his absence	Physical presence is necessary; absence impairs fairness to defendants	Videoconference testimony and counsel presentation are viable; plaintiff’s physical presence not required on this record
Can Rule 35 medical examinations proceed while plaintiff is abroad?	Defendants can send a U.S. physician, hire a vetted local physician, or use telemedicine; plaintiff’s immigration status justifies waiver of travel requirement	Travel to Dominican Republic for exams is cost-prohibitive; local physicians unknown/unacceptable	Plaintiff’s inability to reenter is a compelling reason to waive the usual in-forum exam; record lacks evidence that alternatives are virtually impossible; further development required
Can depositions of overseas witnesses occur?	Depositions can be taken by videoconference or in a mutually convenient third location; costs may be shifted	Coordination and document-review issues make remote depositions inadequate	Remote video depositions or third‑site depositions are commonly used and not shown to be virtually impossible here; closure not justified on this ground either

Key Cases Cited

Muhammad v. Warden, 849 F.2d 107 (4th Cir. 1988) (administrative closure or dismissal for unavailable incarcerated plaintiffs is a last resort after alternatives considered)
Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for docket-control decisions)
Range v. 480-486 Broadway, LLC, 810 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2015) (district court’s inherent authority to control its docket and stay actions)
Thomas v. Anderson, 912 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 43(a) permits live testimony by video for good cause)
El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 496 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (visa denial and foreign residence can justify video testimony)
Lopez v. Miller, 915 F. Supp. 2d 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (deportation and inability to reenter may satisfy Rule 43(a) good-cause requirement)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy)