⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears an insurance dispute that ended before the claimed losses were tried. Quhshi sought payment from Hartford for inventory and merchandise he says were lost or destroyed. But the lawsuit became bogged down in discovery, the exchange of evidence before trial. The district judge repeatedly ordered better answers and clearer identification of documents. He ultimately dismissed the case, finding persistent noncompliance with those orders. Rule 37 allows courts to penalize disobedience, including ending a lawsuit. The question here is whether dismissal was too severe and whether a lesser sanction would have been enough. Joseph Altman, for Quhshi, will argue that the information had been provided and that misunderstandings did not justify dismissal. Melissa Driscoll, for Hartford, will argue that important material was still missing despite repeated chances to comply. The question is whether the judge abused his discretion, not simply whether the appeals panel would prefer a different penalty.

Quhshi v. The Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (No. 25-2511) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 28, 2026.