MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Sharonda Sample filed this case against the American National Red Cross, American Red Cross in Greater New York (together, the “Red Cross”), and ServiceMaster Professional Cleaning Services (“ServiceMaster”), seeking damages for an alleged fall in the Red Cross’s headquarters, where she was working as a security guard. Defendants now move, pursuant to Rules 37 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss, citing Sample’s refusal — despite multiple Court orders — to appear for a deposition and an independent medical examination (“IME”). The Court agrees that Sample’s willful disregard of multiple orders, and her unwillingness to further prosecute her case, warrant dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Sample filed this slip-and-fall case against the Red Cross and ServiceMaster in state court on February 1, 2021. See ECF No. 1-1. On June 10, 2021, after the case had been removed here, the Court entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, pursuant to which the parties initially had until October 13, 2021, to complete fact discovery. See ECF No. 18, 8(b). At the request of one party or another, the Court later extended that date five times, ultimately setting June 6, 2022, as the fact discovery deadline. See ECF Nos. 35, 43, 52, 58, 61. Sample appeared for a deposition on May 16, 2022. See ECF No. 84 (“Brann Decl.”), 14. About four hours into the deposition, however, Sample claimed she was not feeling well and needed a break. See id. When the parties could not agree on whether to proceed or adjourn to another date, they contacted the Court, which — over Defendants’ objections — ordered the deposition halted and adjourned to another date. See id. The parties agreed to continue the deposition remotely on May 20, 2022. See id. On May 19, 2022, however, Sample’s counsel, Kenneth Marder, filed a letter notifying the Court that Sample had discharged his firm and requesting a stay to permit Sample to obtain new counsel. See ECF No. 63. By Order entered the same day, the Court denied Marder’s application without prejudice to filing a proper motion to withdraw or substitute after the close of discovery. See ECF No. 64. “Allowing withdrawal on the eve of the final depositions and with only weeks remaining in the discovery period,” the Court explained, “would plainly disrupt the case and prejudice Defendants.” Id. That same day, defense counsel circulated a Zoom link for Sample’s deposition on the next day. See Brann Decl. 16. Sample did not appear. See id. Shortly before the appointed time, however, defense counsel realized that the link “mistakenly led to a deposition scheduled for May 23, 2022.” Id. As a result, counsel agreed out of an abundance of caution to reschedule the deposition for that date. See id. Once again, however, Sample did not appear. See id. 17. In the wake of these failed depositions, Defendants filed letters seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 37 and 41. See ECF Nos. 67-68. Marder filed a letter in opposition, dated May 26, 2022, acknowledging that he had advised Sample about the May 20 and 23, 2022 deposition dates and “of the possible consequences which could result should she fail to appear,” but contending that dismissal was not warranted. ECF No. 72, at 3. “It would appear apparent,” Marder contended, “that Plaintiff’s actions are not a result of a willing act of contempt of the Court, but rather, of her contempt for the undersigned.” Id. The Court addressed Defendants’ request in an Order entered May 31, 2022. See ECF No. 74. The Court noted that Sample’s “failure to appear for the continuation of her deposition was inexcusable — made all the worse by the fact that it was necessary only because the Court granted *her* request, over Defendants’ objection, to call a halt to her deposition in deference to her health and well-being.” Id. “Further,” the Court continued, “whether she was primarily motivated by contempt for her counsel or not, the fact is that she acted in contempt of the Court’s orders.” Id. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that dismissal of the action was not then warranted. Instead, the Court ordered Sample “to appear for the remainder of her deposition — to be conducted on a date agreed upon by counsel, but no later than June 9, 2022.” Id. The Court expressly warned that “failure by Plaintiff to appear for her deposition” — or an IME that was scheduled for June 6, 2022, see ECF No. 67, at 3 — “may well result in greater sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the case.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court also ordered Sample to reimburse Defendants for the costs and fees associated with the two aborted depositions and their letters, see id., an amount later fixed at $2,353.00, see ECF No. 77. Sample failed to appear for her continued deposition, which was scheduled for June 8, 2022. See Brann Decl. 21. She also failed to appear for the IME on June 6, 2022. See id.
