The opinion
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5/23/2024
CARMAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff. DISCOVERY ORDER
RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’
-against- REQUEST FOR ADMONISHMENT
23-CV-5460 (AS) (KHP)
NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge.
Counsel for Defendants has filed a letter motion with the Court requesting an Order
requiring Plaintiff to cease from inappropriate conduct and to accept service of discovery
materials and other filings by email. (ECF No. 82.) Plaintiff filed a letter in opposition stating
unequivocally that she did not wish to communicate with defense counsel by email and that
she would only communicate through mailed correspondence. (ECF No. 83.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has refused to comply with her discovery obligation to meet and confer with
defense counsel, blocked defense counsel’s email and ignored defense counsel’s requests,
informing defense counsel she will not read his emails. Plaintiff has insisted on receipt of
correspondence by mail but then when things are mailed Plaintiff has claimed she has not
received documents mailed by regular and certified mail. Plaintiff has been warned that failure
to participate in discovery may result in sanctions. Plaintiff also failed to attend a court-ordered
conference on January 23, 2024, and was subsequently warned she could face sanctions for
failing to comply with court orders. She also failed to cooperate with Defendants’ attempt to
schedule her deposition. This resulted in the Court having to mandate a date for Plaintiff's
deposition to take place at the Courthouse.
Most recently, Plaintiff has used an inappropriate epithet toward defense counsel in an
email. In particular, she calls defense counsel an “Uncle Tom” and “[s]elf-hating”
“phenotypically black” person and threatens to file a police report and grievance against him
for merely emailing regarding discovery and scheduling matters. (ECF No. 82, Exhibit A.) In her
opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff contends that “[a]s an African American woman,
[she] clearly can refer to another black person as an Uncle Tom and [has] a right to do so.” She
also suggests that her conduct and personal attacks on defense counsel are permissible
because they “did not occur in open court.” (ECF No. 83.)
Threatening and personally insulting language of the sort Plaintiff has used toward
defense counsel for merely doing his job as counsel for Defendants has no place in litigation —
whether in court or when interacting with opposing counsel on matters related to the litigation
— and is completely inappropriate. Plaintiff is warned that further conduct of the sort
described above will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of her action. See, e.g.,
James v. Kuhnle, 19 Civ. 1175, 2022 WL 2046679 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2022) (dismissing case
brought by pro se plaintiff due to his use of offensive language toward defense counsel and the
court); Scott-Iverson v. Indep. Health Ass'n, No. 13-CV-451, 2017 WL 35453 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4,
2017) (granting sanctions against plaintiff for repeated remarks during depositions that defense
counsel was a “racist” and averring that defense counsel was a “racist” in an affidavit in support
of plaintiff's opposition); Marseet v. Rochester Institute of Technology, 20 Civ. 7096, 2024 WL
108681 (W.D.N.Y. 2024) (dismissing complaint as a sanction for use of offensive and abusive
language).
Additionally, Plaintiff previously informed the Court that she is an attorney. New York
Rules of Professional Conduct state that a lawyer may not engage in undignified or discourteous
conduct. NY ST RPC Rule 3.3(f}(2) (McKinney). The conduct described above and as evidenced
by the communication Plaintiff sent to defense counsel — and which she inexplicably defends
as appropriate — violates this rule.
While it is routine for parties to communicate by email and exchange discovery by
email, Plaintiff has objected to this method of communication even after the Court encouraged
Plaintiff to sign-up for electronic notifications from the Court and to accept service by email to
reduce delays in receiving documents. Nevertheless, the Court declines at this time to require
Plaintiff to accept service by email. Defendants are directed to utilize regular U.S. mail for all
communications with Plaintiff going forward.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff is warned that she will be sanctioned
if she engages in further abusive personal attacks on defense counsel. It is DENIED to the
extent Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to accept email. Defendants shall
communicate with Plaintiff by regular mail.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff
and terminate the motion at ECF No. 82.
SO ORDERED.
Kefhavce H fiber
Dated: May 23, 2024
New York, New York KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge