Buckeye Retirement Co LLC Ltd v. Buffa

Filing 88

ORDER: granting 87 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant shall provide the supporting documents for the tax return on or before January 31, 2012. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 1/13/2012. (Rodko, B.)

BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC, LTD. V. ANTHONY BUFFA, 05 CV 769 (JGM)
1/13/12 – ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ARTICULATION AND/OR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. #87).
Familiarity is presumed with the multiple post-judgment rulings issued by this
Magistrate Judge (see Dkts. ##48, 62, 64, 65, 73; see also Dkts. ##39, 51-52, 58, 7576), and in particular, the fourteen page Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion For: (A)
Supplemental Post-judgment Discovery Orders, (B) Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of
Execution, and (C) Finding of Contempt Against Multiple Parties, and on Defendant’s
Cross-motion to Modify Discovery Orders, Terminate Post Judgment Discovery and for
Protective Order, filed December 16, 2011 (Dkt. #86)[“December 2011 Ruling”].
On December 20, 2011, plaintiff filed the pending Plaintiff’s Motion for Articulation
and/or Reconsideration (Dkt. #87), as to which defendant has failed to file a timely brief
in opposition. The pending motion addresses two issues in the December 2011 Ruling.
The first is whether the order to produce Tax Returns (December 2011 Ruling at 14) also
includes the supporting documents for these tax returns. In the absence of a timely
objection, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted to that extent. In addition to
the documents for which compliance is required by January 17, 2012 (December 2011
Ruling at 14), defendant shall provide the supporting documents for the tax returns on or
before January 31, 2012.
The second issue is whether the December 2011 Ruling is “without prejudice” with
respect to the documents for which compliance was not ordered. The December 2011
Ruling explicitly provided that “[t]here shall be no further post-judgment discovery in
this case, beyond that permitted above, without express leave of the Court upon good
cause shown.” Thus, the December 2011 Ruling was “without prejudice” if and only if
any additional post-judgment discovery is with express leave of the Court upon good
cause shown.1

1

In its motion, plaintiff mentions the possibility that it “may have to seek review (e.g.,
review by the District Court).” (Dkt. #87, at 2). More than six years ago, the parties consented to
trial before this Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #20), so that all post-judgment activity (of which there has
been an over-abundance) is before, and only before, this Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1)-(3). U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, to whom this case was assigned from May
2005 through December 2005, no longer has any role in this litigation.