Yomi v. Becerra, 23-3003

Francis Yomi, a former FDA employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination lawsuit in Kansas, alleging race, national origin, and sex discrimination.
Early in litigation, Yomi had disputes with the court and opposing counsel over discovery, protective orders, and the location of his deposition, asserting financial hardship and health issues.
The district court and magistrate judge repeatedly overruled Yomi’s objections and ordered him to appear in Kansas for his deposition and comply with written discovery requests.
Yomi failed to appear for his noticed deposition, did not produce court-ordered discovery, and moved for stays based partially on a car accident, but provided insufficient medical evidence of incapacity.
The government moved to dismiss for discovery misconduct. The magistrate and later the district court recommended and ordered dismissal, finding Yomi intransigent and noncompliant after warnings.
On appeal, Yomi also moved to recuse the judges, claiming bias, which the appellate panel liberally construed as part of his challenge to the dismissal sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal as discovery sanction	Filed discovery objections and motions that should have suspended obligations; claimed incapacity from car accident	Yomi’s repeated failure to comply with court orders and show for deposition justified dismissal	Dismissal was not an abuse of discretion; sanction affirmed
Location of plaintiff’s deposition	Rules required deposition location near residence (Maryland); unable to travel to Kansas	Plaintiffs must generally appear in the district of suit; Yomi had no good cause and was inconsistent	Plaintiff must appear in Kansas; court had discretion on location
Motions to recuse judges	Judges were biased, retaliatory, and racist due to adverse rulings	No evidence of bias; adverse rulings not valid grounds for recusal	Denied; no hint of bias, courts acted appropriately
Requirement for Rule 37(d) certification and conferral	Government did not properly confer before moving for sanctions	Sufficient efforts to resolve discovery disputes; certification included	Government complied with Rule 37(d); no basis for reversal

Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (sets forth five factors courts should consider before dismissing a case as a discovery sanction)
Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 1997) (adverse rulings alone not grounds for recusal of a judge)
Lee v. Max Int'l, LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) (review of sanctions orders for abuse of discretion)
Robison v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 368 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1966) (sanctions for failing to attend deposition apply regardless of whether court ordered attendance)
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (court orders must be obeyed until reversed)