Carter v. City of New York et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: I affirm Judge Tiscione's discovery order in full. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 12/15/2016. (Greene, Donna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MICHAEL CARTER,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK,POLICE OFFICER
DARRELL WALLACE,POLICE OFFICER
ABRAHAM HIDALGO,POLICE OFFICER

11 Civ.4026(AMD)
(ST)

AHMED,POLICE OFFICER CAROL PETINAUD,

IN CLERK'S OFFICE

us DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

SERGEANT DANIELLE DAVIS,SERGEANT
WIL PELLEGRINO,and SERGEANT lAMES

-•

DEC 1

HUDAK,
Defendants.
X

ANN M.DONNELLY,District ludge.

The pro se plaintiff, Michael Carter, appeals from Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione's
order denying his motion to compel document production more thantwo years after the close of
discovery.' For the reasons that follow,I affirm Judge Tiscione's discovery order in full.
The standard ofreview regarding a non-dispositive ruling by a magistratejudge is

"highly deferential." Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hasp.,No.08-CV-1008 FB JMA,2012
WL 4442621,at *I(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25,2012). The Court will only set aside an order 'that is

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."'Id.(citing 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(A);Fed. R.Civ.P.
72(a); Thomas E. Hoar. Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp.,900 F.2d 522,525(2d Cir. 1990))."Magistrate
judges have broad discretion in resolving discovery matters, and a party seeking to overtum a
discovery order 'generally bears a heavy burden.'"Id (quoting Mental Disability Law Clinic v.

.Discove.yendedonMay2,2014. (S..Minute En^.Febnia^ 28.20^

prooetol history of

the case is set forth in my Order denying the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint.(Dkt. No. .)

s/Ann M. Donnelly