A.S. v. HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION et al

Filing 98

ORDER denying 94 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/21/15. (dd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________
A.S.,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 14-147 (NLH/KMW)

v.
ORDER
HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.
__________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Jamie Epstein, Esquire
107 Cherry Parke, Suite C
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
Counsel for Plaintiff
Brett E.J. Gorman, Esquire
Parker McCay PA
9000 Midlantic Drive
Suite 300
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Counsel for Defendant Harrison Township Board of Education
William S. Donio, Esquire
Cooper Levenson, P.A.
1125 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401-4891
Counsel for Non-Party East Greenwich School District
HILLMAN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court by way of motion [Doc.
No. 94] of Plaintiff, A.S., seeking an order staying a text
order entered by Karen M. Williams, United States Magistrate
1

Judge, that allows non-party East Greenwich School District
(hereafter, “East Greenwich”) to participate through counsel in
a conference call on April 21, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.; and
Plaintiff also seeking entry of an order removing East
Greenwich from the electronic docket of this matter and
precluding Defendant Harrison Township Board of Education from
disclosing information pertaining to A.S.’s records outside of
Harrison’s litigation group until a protective order is signed;
and
The Court noting that Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend
the complaint to add East Greenwich as a defendant in this
matter, which motion is presently pending before this Court; and
The Court also noting that subsequent to the filing of
Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the case was stayed pursuant to a
scheduling order entered by Magistrate Judge Williams on
February 10, 2015, so that the parties could engage in
settlement negotiations; and
The Court further noting that on April 9, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Williams entered a text order scheduling a telephone
status conference in this matter.

At the request of Plaintiff’s

counsel, the conference was then rescheduled to April 21, 2015;
and
Counsel for East Greenwich having sent a letter [Doc. No.
92] to Magistrate Judge Williams dated April 15, 2015, in which
2

counsel states that he had contacted Judge Williams’ chambers to
inquire as to whether the Court expected East Greenwich to
participate in the status conference; and the letter further
indicating that counsel for East Greenwich was informed that
Judge Williams “would likely want [East Greenwich] to
participate in the status conference” if East Greenwich “had
updated information that could help move this case forward”
(Letter from Andrew D. Linenberg, Esq. [Doc. No. 92], Apr. 15,
2015); and
The letter also indicating that Plaintiff’s counsel
objected to East Greenwich’s participation in the status
conference; and
Magistrate Judge Williams having then entered a text order
on April 16, 2015 which stated that “Counsel for East Greenwich
Twp. Board of Education is expected to appear for the telephone
status conference previously set for April 21, 2015 at 2:00
p.m.”; and
It appearing that Plaintiff seeks a stay because he intends
to appeal Magistrate Judge Williams’ text order pursuant to L.
Civ. R. 72.1c(1)(A), although such appeal had not been filed as
of the date of the scheduled conference; and
The Court noting that pursuant to L. Civ. R. 72.1c(1)(B),
“the filing of such a motion . . . to appeal does not operate to
stay the order pending appeal to a Judge.
3

A stay of a

Magistrate Judge’s order pending appeal must be sought in the
first instance from the Magistrate Judge whose order had been
appealed, upon due notice to all interested parties;” and
Plaintiff has not sought from Magistrate Judge Williams a
stay of her April 16, 2015 text order, but has rather addressed
the motion to the undersigned, and Plaintiff therefore has not
complied with L. Civ. R. 72.1c(1)(B); and
The Court also noting that “Magistrate Judges have broad
discretion to manage their docket and to decide discovery
issues.”

Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 247

F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007).

When a Magistrate Judge “has

exercised discretion, the District Court will reverse the
decision only for an abuse of that discretion” and deference “is
‘especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed
[a] case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of
the proceedings.’”

Hioutakos v. SimplexGrinnell LP, Civ. No.

2:10-4505, 2014 WL 1255197, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 26,
2014)(citations omitted); and
Although no appeal has yet been filed, the Court has
reviewed the record and finds at this time no basis to conclude
that Magistrate Judge Williams abused her discretion in allowing
East Greenwich to participate in a status conference.

Plaintiff

seeks to add East Greenwich as a party, and it appears that
Magistrate Judge Williams has requested that East Greenwich
4

participate in the status conference to the extent East
Greenwich has updated information that could help move this case
forward. 1

Furthermore, although Plaintiff has objected to East

Greenwich’s participation in the conference, counsel for
Plaintiff has not provided any explanation for his refusal to
consent, and the Court sees no basis to preclude East Greenwich
from participating in a status conference in light of
Plaintiff’s effort to add East Greenwich as a party; and
The Court therefore finding at this time no basis to enter
a stay of Magistrate Judge Williams’ text order; and
Plaintiff also requesting through the instant motion
additional relief, such as an order removing East Greenwich from
the electronic docket and an order restraining Defendant
Harrison Township from disclosing certain information.

Such

relief is appropriately requested by way of a motion for a
protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), an issue

1

The Court notes Plaintiff’s argument that East Greenwich does
not have standing to participate in the litigation. However,
the cases cited by Plaintiff in support of his argument are
inapposite. Custom Pak Brokerage, LLC v. Dandrea Produce, Inc.,
Civ. No. 13-5592, 2014 WL 988829, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2014)
and Vasquez v. Summit Women’s Ctr., Inc., No. 301-955, 2001 WL
34150397, at *1 n.1 (D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2001) concern the
standing of a proposed defendant to object to a motion to amend.
These cases do not address an interested non-party’s ability to
participate in a status conference when such participation was
requested by a Magistrate Judge.
5

that may be raised with Magistrate Judge Williams during the
status conference;
CONSEQUENTLY, for the reasons set forth above and for good
cause shown:
IT IS on this 21st day of April 2015,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. No. 94] for an order
to show cause concerning a stay of Magistrate Judge Williams’
text order [93] and seeking a temporary restraining order
concerning the accessibility of Plaintiff’s school and health
records be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey

6