In a case being defended by the team at Kaufman Dolowich, a plaintiff who refused to show up for a deposition in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case has been ordered to pay more than $5,300 to the attorneys representing the defendant because she “thumbed her nose” at the court, a District Court judge has ruled. The sanctions follow months of discovery disputes and come just weeks after the same judge rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to have herself removed from the case.
The background: The plaintiff sued the defendant over efforts to collect unpaid rent she withheld from her landlord. Although proceeding without counsel, the court noted that the plaintiff holds a law degree from Poland and recently earned a Master of Laws from Temple University.
- After a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied, discovery moved forward. The defendants attempted to schedule a deposition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded by asserting she would not answer certain categories of questions and later claimed she could not appear in person due to a heart condition.
- Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennylvania ordered the plaintiff to attend an in-person deposition and warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions.
- Despite that warning, the plaintiff filed last-minute motions seeking a remote deposition, including one filed in the early morning hours of the scheduled deposition date. The motions were denied, but the plaintiff still did not appear for the deposition as ordered.
The ruling: The defendants sought sanctions, asking for attorney’s fees and costs tied to the missed deposition. While Judge Pappert declined to dismiss the case, he concluded that monetary sanctions were justified because the plaintiff had violated a clear court order.
- The judge rejected the plaintiff’s claim that she was justified in waiting for a ruling on her last-minute motion. Filing a motion, the court explained, does not suspend an obligation to comply with an existing order, Judge Pappert noted. The court described the motion as “a calculated maneuver designed to avoid being deposed in person” and said the plaintiff “willfully disobeyed a court order for no good reason and with full knowledge of the consequences.”
- The plaintiff “thumbed her nose at the Court and wasted the defendants’ time and money,” forcing them to incur unnecessary expenses, Judge Pappert wrote. The judge emphasized that pro se status does not shield a party from sanctions, especially where the conduct is intentional.
- After reviewing billing records and hourly rates, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $5,316, covering a nonrefundable court reporter fee and attorney time spent pursuing sanctions.
