A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has denied motions from a pro se plaintiff to recuse himself from a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case after the plaintiff objected to being ordered to appear in person for a deposition, according to a memorandum issued earlier this month. The ruling comes after months of discovery disputes, repeated requests from the plaintiff to be deposed remotely, and her subsequent failure to appear for the deposition at all.
The background: The plaintiff sued the defendant law firm and attorney over attempts to collect unpaid rent she had withheld from her landlord, alleging violations of the FDCPA. After the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss earlier this year, discovery moved forward.
- When the defendant noticed the plaintiff’s deposition, she responded with a list of topics she refused to discuss, including the underlying landlord-tenant case and her medical history, both of which the defendants argued were central to her claims.
- A telephone conference hearing was held and the plaintiff was reminded that she was required to sit for a deposition and answer relevant questions.
- At that conference, the plaintiff for the first time said she could not appear in person due to a heart condition. The court allowed her to file a motion supporting her request but instructed that she must provide “acceptable medical evidence.” She later submitted a doctor’s note stating she had atrial fibrillation, which the court found insufficient because it did not explain why the condition prevented her from sitting for a deposition.
- When the plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled deposition, the defendants moved for sanctions. Before the court could rule, the plaintiff filed two motions seeking the judge’s disqualification.
The ruling: Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennylvania denied both motions, explaining that the plaintiff’s arguments showed only disagreement with his discovery rulings, which is not a valid basis for recusal.
- Judge Pappert also noted that the plaintiff had provided no evidence of personal bias. Her claim that the court disrespected her as a female pro se litigant was unsupported, the judge said, pointing out that he referred to her as “Ms. Anderson” throughout the proceedings and that he ruled in her favor.
- One light but pointed moment highlighted the court’s confusion over her claim of health limitations: after she revealed she worked in New York City despite living in Philadelphia, the judge paused to ask, “Hold on. Back up. You work in New York City?” — questioning why she could make that commute but not attend an in-person deposition.
- The court concluded that none of the plaintiff’s allegations “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” and therefore recusal was not appropriate.
