Plaintiff’s Failure to Cooperate In Discovery Results In Dismissal of Employment Case

KUANG v. GENZYME GENETICS CORPORATION, Dist. Court, SD New York 2012 – Google Scholar.

This case alleges race and age discrimination. It was dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a sanction for the failure to cooperate in discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel also misrepresented facts in communications to the Court and refused to allow his client to be deposed. The deposition began and was halted by plaintiff’s counsel after 3 hours. It was never finished even after the court ordered the deposition to proceed for an additional 5 hours.

The court found that the misconduct was designed to obtain a tactical advantage. The Court explained:

“The Court concludes that Plaintiff and her counsel have sought a tactical advantage by repeatedly attempting to protect Ms. Kuang from her obligation to allow her adversary to depose her. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to schedule times in good faith to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. (See Section “ILD” above). Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that his client was too ill to continue to be deposed, but presented the Court and his adversary inadequate records to demonstrate so much. (Docket # 44). Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to notify his adversary and the Court whether Plaintiff would be available for a deposition on the week of September 4, 2012, and unrealistic offer on September 5, 2012, to make his client available less than 48 hours later without any prior notice, all suggest a course of conduct designed to prevent Ms. Kuang from having to be subjected to a complete deposition.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s