Antonio Goodwin v. AT&T Corporation

Whether due process is violated where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin filed a dispositive motion on September 10, 2025 that should have been granted in Plain tiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s favor, where the dispositive motion filed on September 10, 2025 proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an employee of AT&T, AT&T Inc., and AT&T Corp., where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin filed more than 1,053 documents identifying Antonio Goodwin on AT&T, AT&T Inc., and AT&T Corp, documents as an employee of those entities, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin received an AT&T envelope dated January 17, 2022 containing his full name, employee number, AT&T password, clothing-order records, AT&T phone number 1-800-331-0500, and the att.com/returns website, where a live AT&T customer service agent confirmed in writing “this is AT&T,” where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin preserved those text messages, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin has a video-recorded phone call message from AT&T stating “this is AT&T” from his employee document, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin has a live agent texting Mr. Antonio Goodwin stating “this is AT&T” from Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s AT&T employee document connected to the AT&T work phone number 1-800-331-0500, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin offered to conduct a Zoom video-recorded call with the Court, AT&T, and counsel to call 1-800-331-0500 live to verify employment, where Documents 155,156, Exhibit A, Document 174, and Document 199 proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an AT&T employee, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s AT&T employee clothing order, the AT&T phone number 1-800-331-0500, the AT&T video voice message stating “this is AT&T,” and the AT&T live-agent text message stating “this is AT&T” proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an AT&T employee, where this evidence directly contradicts the February 26, 2024 declaration of Pamela M. Phillips stating she conducted an “exhaustive search” and found “no records” of employment, where that declaration identified AT&T Inc. at 208 S. Akard St., Dallas, Texas, which matches the corporate identity in Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s documents, and where the lower court nevertheless allowed sanctions proceedings to move forward while that dispositive motion remained unresolved through the December 30, 2025 sanctions hearing.

Whether sanctions may be imposed or upheld based on the September 25, 2025 in-person deposition where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s dispositive motion filed September 10, 2025 remained pending and could have overpowered, eliminated, mooted, or taken the September 25,2025 in-person deposition out of the equation entirely, where the deposition occurred after the discovery cutoff date, where ECF No. 123 filed September 3, 2025 was only a motion, where ECF No. 133 filed September 11,2025 was only a reply, where Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts did not issue the relevant ruling until November 25, 2025 after the deposition date had already passed, and where sanctions should not be recommended or imposed while dispositive motions remained pending, while no order compelled the deposition at the relevant time, while the deposition occurred after the discovery cutoff, and while critical medical and caregiving evidence supported remote participation.

Whether a district court abuses its discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure