Nolan v. The City of New York et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM R. NOLAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
19-CV-00187-RPK-ST
TISCIONE, United States Magistrate Judge:
On May 21, 2025, William R. Nolan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Letter Motion for Contempt
against Defendant Jose Rodriguez (“Defendant”), to which the Court granted on July 11, 2025,
due to Defendant’s repeated failure to comply with Court Orders and Plaintiff’s subpoena requests.
In that Minute Order, the Court noted that in “light of Defendant Rodriguez's continued failure to
comply with the subpoena and subsequent Court Orders, the Court orders Defendant Rodriguez to
pay all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, that Plaintiff expended and continues to
expend attempting to secure Rodriguez's compliance. Continued failure to comply will also result
in a finding of contempt and additional monetary sanctions.” July 11, 2025, Order, ECF No. 113.
Defendant Rodriguez failed to comply, and on November 3, 2025, this Court again issued
a Minute Order directing Defendant Rodriguez to “pay Plaintiff's counsel the sum of $7,187.38
and fully comply with the subpoena issued on April 18, 2024 no later than November 30, 2025.
Continued noncompliance will result in this Court recommending that the District Judge find
Defendant Rodriguez in contempt and order his arrest and incarceration until such time as he
complies with the Court's Orders.” ECF No. 117.1
1 Notably, although Rodriguez is a named Defendant in this matter and was lawfully served, he
defaulted and has never appeared. Thus, Plaintiff has been forced to resort to subpoenas to
obtain discoverable information from Rodriguez instead of less onerous discovery devices
available to active parties.
Case 1:19-cv-00187-RPK-ST Document 121 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
As of the present date, Defendant Rodriguez has not complied with this Court’s Orders and
Plaintiff’s subpoena, leading this Court to recommend that the District Judge hold Defendant in
contempt of court. It is well established that a “court of the United States shall have power to
punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none
other, as ... [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command.” Next Invs., LLC v. Bank of China, 12 F.4th 119, 128 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing 18 U.S.C. §
401, 401(3)); Ahamed v. 563 Manhattan Inc., No. 19-CV-6388 (EK) (CLP), 2023 WL 4986364, at
*4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), report and recommendation adopted in part, 2023 WL 6283280
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) (“It is well-settled that federal courts have inherent power to punish
contempt.”). “To demonstrate [contempt], ‘a movant must establish that (1) the order the
contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear
and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable
manner.’ ” Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 142 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Perez v.
Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 423–24 (2d Cir. 2003)).
In the instant matter, Defendant Rodriguez failed to comply with this Court’s July 11, 2025,
and November 3, 2025, Orders, which both clearly and unambiguously mandated Defendant
Rodriguez to answer Plaintiff’s subpoena and to pay all reasonable fees Plaintiff expended in
attempting to secure Defendant’s compliance. See July 11, 2025, Order; see also November 3,
2025, Order. Secondly, Plaintiff provided sufficient proof in the form of communications with
Defendant Rodriguez, in which Defendant not only failed to acknowledge such Orders, but
appeared to sporadically respond to Plaintiff’s counsel with mocking photographs and videos of
Plaintiff. See Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Letter Motion at 1-2, ECF No. 120. Such odd
responses from Defendant not only demonstrate that his noncompliance is clear and convincing,
Case 1:19-cv-00187-RPK-ST Document 121 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
but also showcase that Defendant Rodriguez has not diligently attempted to comply with the
Court’s orders and Plaintiff’s subpoena in a reasonable manner. Defendant’s only form of
correspondence in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena was a random series of videos of Plaintiff,
several Facebook links, a closeup picture of Plaintiff’s face, and an email containing the subject
line “[t]his is Billy Nolan serial Staten Island harasser,” accompanied with another Facebook link
and the text: “this is who you represent. Over 100 victims and multiple arrest good luck.” Id.
Therefore, given Defendant Rodriguez’s clear lack of compliance with this Court’s orders and
Plaintiff’s subpoena, this Court respectfully recommends to the District Judge that Plaintiff’s
Letter Motion for Sanctions be granted and that Defendant Rodriguez be incarcerated until such
time as he purges his contempt by complying with the Court’s Orders and Plaintiff’s subpoena.
Plaintiff’s December 2, 2025, Letter Motion, ECF 119; November 3, 2025, Order, ECF No. 117.
Case 1:19-cv-00187-RPK-ST Document 121 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. Failure to file timely objections shall constitute a
waiver of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals. See Marcella v. Cap. Dist. Physicians’ Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42, 46 (2d
Cir. 2002); Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989); see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
SO ORDERED.
/s/
Steven Tiscione
United States Magistrate Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 17, 2025
Case 1:19-cv-00187-RPK-ST Document 121 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>