SKOORKA v. KEAN UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 102

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 11/15/2013. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BRUCE M. SKOORKA,

Civ. No. 2:09-03428
(KM)(MAH)

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KEAN UNIVERSITY, THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
KEAN UNIVERSITY, KEAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, COUNCIL OF NEW
JERSEY STATE COLLEGE LOCALS,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
WILLIAM M. KEMPEY, DAWOOD FARAHI,
VINTON THOMPSON, ALFRED NGOME
NTOKO, and MARIA DEL C. RODRIGUEZ
Defendants.

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

This matter comes before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff, Bruce M.
Skoorka’s Letter of Appeal’ dated June 27, 2012, Docket No. 90. Skoorka
objects to certain of Magistrate Judge Hammer’s discovery orders following a
June 6, 2013 status conference. Docket Nos. 84, 86. I find that Judge
Hammer’s discovery rulings were well within the bounds of his discretion and
that they are not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Accordingly, I affirm
Defendants argue that this appeal should be denied because Plaintiff
has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and L. Civ. R. 72.1. Docket No.
89. While acknowledging that Plaintiff failed to comply with the formal filing
requirements set forth under these rules regarding objections to non
dispositive orders issued by a Magistrate Judge, I have nonetheless considered
this pro se Plaintiff’s objections and affirmed Judge Hammer’s discovery rulings
on the merits.
1

Judge Hammer’s well-reasoned and balanced decisions, reflected in the Orders
dated June 17, 2013 (Docket no. 84), and June 26, 2013 (Docket no. 86), and
deny this appeal.
I. Background
Plaintiff Skoorka, an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics
at Kean University, brought the present action in July 2009 against Kean
University, the State of New Jersey, the Board of Trustees of Kean University,
Kean Federation of Teachers, Council of New Jersey State College Locals,
American Federation of Teachers, William M. Kempey, Dawood Farahi, Vinton
Thompson, Alfred Ngome Ntoko, and Maria Del C. Rodriguez. Skoorka alleges
discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unfair employment practices
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination, N.LJ.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., and the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. Docket No. 1
(“Complaint”).
Discovery disputes have arisen throughout the course of this litigation.
Plaintiff has repeatedly requested certain documents, while Defendants have
opposed certain requests on the basis that the requests are irrelevant, overly
burdensome, or unclear and ambiguous. See Docket No. 90-1 (Exhibit 1)
(“Transcript of the June 6, 2013 Status Conference”). During the June 6, 2013
status conference, Judge Hammer heard oral argument regarding Plaintiff
Skoorka’s March 6, 2012 letter request for an order compelling the production
of certain documents (Docket No. 69). After considering the arguments, the
parties’ filings, and the entirety of the case file, in an Order memorializing the
oral rulings made during the June 6 conference call, Judge Hammer denied
Skoorka’s requests as to certain documents and granted them as to others.
Docket No. 84.
Document Request No. 7 received separate treatment. This request
Judge Hammer denied in its entirety, but without prejudice to resubmission to
the court before June 17, 2013. Judge Hammer noted that any renewed
version of Request No. 7 must “set forth with particularity the relevance of this
request to the claims and/or defenses in this matter . . . .“ Id. at 4. Skoorka
filed a renewed version of Document Request No. 7 in a letter dated June 14,
2013. Docket No. 81.
In a June 26, 2013 Order, again after reviewing plaintiff’s claims and
discovery requests, Judge Hammer found that Skoorka failed to set forth with
particularity the relevance of the documents sought in his renewed Request No.
2

7, as specifically required in the previous Order. Docket No. 86 at 3. Two days
later, on June 28, 2013, Plaintiff Skoorka filed the appeal now before the
Court. In this appeal, he objects to the adverse discovery rulings in the June
17, 2013 and June 26, 2013 Orders. Docket No. 90.
II. Discussion

Magistrate Judge Hammer properly exercised his discretion in granting
Skoorka’s discovery requests in part and denying them in part. After reviewing
the record, I find no evidence of clear error or an abuse of discretion. Indeed,
Judge Hammer exercised sound judgment to strike a proper balance between
Plaintiff’s requests and the bounds of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26’s relevance standard.
On appeal, Plaintiff reiterates that he believes himself entitled to all discovery
requested, but he fails to explain how Judge Hammer’s rulings are clearly
erroneous or contrary to the law. Judge Hammer has managed the discovery of
this case for over two years and has gained a thorough knowledge of these
proceedings. I agree with Judge Hammer’s reasoning that certain discovery
requests are overly broad and/or irrelevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; afortiori I
do not find Judge Hammer’s rulings exceeded the bounds of his discretion or
clearly erred under the law.
A. Standard of Review

The District Court will reverse a Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order
only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L. Civ.
R. 72. 1(c)(1)(A); Haines v. Liggett Group, 975 F.2d 81, 92 (3d Cir. 1992); see
also Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1113 (3d Cir. 1986). Where
a Magistrate Judge is authorized to exercise his or her discretion, as in a
discovery matter now before this Court, the District Court will reverse the
decision only for an abuse of that discretion. See Cooper Hospital! Univ. Med.
Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998); Kresefky v. Panasonic
Commc’ns & Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J. 1996); Deluccia v. City of
Paterson, No. 09-703, 2012 WL 909548, at *1 (D.N.J. March 15, 2012). Such
deference is “especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed
this case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of the
proceedings.” Lithuanian Commerce Corp., Ltd. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 177 F.R.D.
205, 214 (D.N.J. 1997) (citing Public Interest Research Group v. Hercules, Inc.,
830 F.Supp. 1525, 1547 (D.N.J. 1993), affd on other grounds and revd on other
grounds, 50 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Because the issue here is one of discovery, my standard of review is
deferential.
3

B. There is No Clear Error or Abuse of Discretion Warranting
Reversal of Judge Hammer’s Discovery Rulings

While Skoorka alleges that, to date, Defendants have provided “Plaintiff
with none of his discovery requests,” Docket No. 90 at 1, this assertion is
untrue. In fact, Defendants have complied with many of Plaintiff’s requests.
Indeed, Judge Hammer has ordered Defendants to produce the majority of the
documents requested by Plaintiff. As to the document requests that Judge
Hammer denied, there is no error. The requests in contention are briefly
discussed below.
1. Document Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 3
Plaintiff objects to Judge Hammer’s Order denying, in part, Document
Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Specifically, he complains (1) that the Court failed to
order Kean to provide electronic discovery and produce electronic records of
communications with Plaintiff; (2) that the Court omitted several categories of
documents of electronic discovery to which he is entitled—policies and alleged
policy violations, an A-328 performance evaluation, internal policy complaints,
and alleged student complaints; and (3) that re-establishing Plaintiff’s access to
his Kean email account is not an adequate response to his electronic document
requests.
I find no reversible error in Judge Hammer’s decision to deny these
requests. Judge Hammer found that specific categories of documents
enumerated above were irrelevant and overly burdensome, particularly in light
of other discovery provided, or found the requests vague or ambiguous. I find
that such a conclusion is well within Judge Hammer’s discretion and was not
an abuse thereof. As to the third objection, Defendants maintain that they have
confirmed with Skoorka that his Kean email account is and has at all times
been active, and have advised him on how to access the account. Docket No.
89 (Exhibit E). It seems that the Plaintiff has access to all electronic email
documents he seeks.
2. Document Requests Nos. 4 and 5
Skoorka also made certain requests regarding Kean University’s
accreditation process. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has made no showing to
suggest that these documents are relevant to his claims or that the documents
would lead to relevant evidence. Judge Hammer ordered Defendants to produce
copies of documents and correspondence between the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (“AACSB”) regarding Kean’s 2008-2009
4

application for membership and a copy of Middle States Accreditation’s most
recent decision regarding Kean’s accreditation, but otherwise denied Plaintiff’s
request. Docket No. 84 at 3. Skoorka now argues that he is entitled to “all hard
copy documents regarding Kean and Middle States” and that he should receive
“all supporting and/or underlying documents as well.” Docket No. 90 at 19.
I do not find that there is any clear error regarding this ruling. Judge
Hammer granted key discovery on the issue, but exercised his discretion to
limit its scope. That is a classic discretionary ruling, and I will not overturn it.
See Salamone v. Carter’s Retail, Inc., Civ. No. 09-5856, 2011 WL 1458063, at *2
(D.N.J. April 14, 2011 (reasoning that the boundaries of relevance are contextspecific and that such a determination is within the court’s discretion).
3. Document Request 6
Plaintiff requested the personnel files of fifteen Kean University
Employees. Defendants maintain that these files, ostensibly to be used to
compare Skoorka’s qualification to employees promoted ahead of him, are
irrelevant because Skoorka has not applied for a promotion in over ten years,
well before October 2005, the date his claims allegedly arose. Transcript of the
June 6, 2013 Status Conference at 36:4-10; Docket No. 89 at 6. Judge
Hammer found that Skoorka had not established a basis for thinking these
personnel files were relevant to his claims, paying particular attention to the
confidential nature of these documents. (Defendants were, however, ordered to
produce Plaintiff’s course schedule for all Economics Department courses from
the fall 2005 semester to present.) Docket No. 84 at 3. Again, this is a classic
judgment call as to relevance and burden, and I do not find any error that
would lead me to overturn Judge Hammer’s ruling.
4. Document Request 7
Plaintiff requested “all documents regarding a complaint of
discrimination in the Biology Department” that was identified in a 2004
deposition of former Kean University President Appibaum. Docket No. 90 at 22.
This request was denied during the June 6 conference call, but Plaintiff was
provided an opportunity to re-file the request, setting forth “with particularity
the relevance of this request to the claims and/or defenses in this matter.
Plaintiff re-filed his request, but Judge Hammer
Docket No. 84 at 4.
determined that the renewed request still failed to set forth a basis for a finding
of relevance. See Docket No. 86 at 3. He found that Skoorka failed to establish
how the incidents discussed in the 2004 deposition bore any relevance to
Skoorka’s discrimination claim, particularly in light of the fact that the incident
.

5

.

allegedly occurred in the Biology Department on an unspecified date preceding
the accrual date of Skoorka’s claims. Id. I find no clear error in Judge
Hammer’s discretionary denial of the request for this material.
5. Document Request 8
Skoorka requested all documents regarding any investigation of Plaintiff
or his claims as detailed in either internal complaints since October 2005 or in
any policy violations. Docket No. 90 at 24. Defendants argue that Judge
Hammer granted virtually everything that Skoorka requested in Document
Request No. 8 and that Skoorka’s argument for additional documents set forth
in his Letter of Appeal goes beyond the scope of his original request. Docket No.
89 at 7. This appears to be correct. Plaintiff argues on appeal that he is entitled
to “underlying documents concerning any reports” as well as reports that may
be “deemed not to be an ‘internal report.”’ He also argues that he should
receive any documents related to external investigations. Docket No. 90 at 24.
Upon review, I find no reason to compel any further evidence as to this request;
Judge Hammer permissibly allowed discovery of almost all of this material,
setting only modest discretionary limits, and some of it was not even requested.
6. Document Request 9
Judge Hammer ordered that Defendants produce a complete list of all
faculty who applied for a promotion to Associate Professor or Full Professor and
a list of those who were promoted without going through the formal process,
including rankings, from October 2005 to present. Docket No. 84 at 5. Plaintiff
now seeks to expand the time frame, arguing that he should receive this
information from 2003 to the present. Defendants again argue that Judge
Hammer granted virtually everything that Skoorka requested in Document
Request No. 9 and that Plaintiff seeks documents related to time periods that
predate the accrual of his claims and that relate to promotions that occurred
during years when he did not seek promotion. Docket No. 89 at 7. I again find
Judge Hammer’s ruling to be reasonable and soundly within his discretion.
7. Document Request 10
Finally, Skoorka requested documents related to an investigation of Kean
University President Dawood Farahi’s academic record. Judge Hammer denied
this request, but he nonetheless directed Defendants to provide Skoorka with
all materials publicly available on Kean’s website related to the investigation.
Docket No. 84 at 5. Notably, Judge Hammer afforded Skoorka the opportunity
to file a renewed request specifying why the materials provided were
6

insufficient and why the requested confidential materials were relevant to
Skoorka’s claims. Id. Plaintiff did not re-file the request. Defendants argue that
Skoorka has failed to establish how the Farahi investigation is at all relevant to
his claims. Docket No. 89 at 7. I find that Judge Hammer’s ruling was
reasonable. Skoorka was provided the opportunity to establish why these
documents were relevant to his claims or defenses, but failed to do so.
C. Alleged Discrepancies the June 6, 2013 Transcript

In his Letter of Appeal, Plaintiff contends that the transcript of the June
6, 2013 conference has numerous gaps and errors. Skoorka now says that “his
comprehensive and detailed responses to the Court [related to the relevance of
his discovery requests] is largely deleted from the transcript rendering
Plaintiff’s answer to the Court apparently incomplete, not understandable, or
nondiscernable.” Docket No. 90 at 10. Skoorka also argues that there is “a
considerable amount of inaccurate or altered text” in the hearing transcript
that does “not appear to be typos or transcription errors.” Id. at 11.
Defendants counter that the hearing transcript appears to be complete.
They also note that, although Plaintiff contends that his important and detailed
arguments are missing from the transcript, he fails to specifr or describe any
any such arguments.
I of course was not present for the status conference and cannot say
whether the transcript reflects the proceedings in its entirety. To an outside
reader, there do not appear to be any glaring holes in the transcription. I need
not and do not reach any factual conclusions as to this issue, however.
First, I am certain that Judge Hammer was present for the status
conference and that he was able to listen to and consider any arguments made
by the parties. During the status conference, Judge Hammer heard both
parties’ arguments as to the discovery disputes and made his discovery rulings.
Second, even now, Plaintiff remains free to assert to me any persuasive
or dispositive argument that he believes the transcript fails to reflect. He has
not done so.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations as to the status conference transcript
have no bearing on my conclusion that Judge Hammer’s rulings are not clearly
erroneous.

7

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Bruce M. Skoorka’s Letter of Appeal of
Judge Hammer’s June 17, 2013 and June 26, 2013 Orders, Docket Nos. 84
and 86, will be DENIED in its entirety.
An appropriate Order follows.

( Kevin McNulty
United States District Judge

Dated: November 15, 2013

8