Vaad L'Hafotzas Sichos, Inc. et al v. Krinsky et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Affirming in whole Magistrate Judge Orensteins August 17, 2012 discovery order and denying plaintiff's 85 discovery motion. See attached memorandum and order for details. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/18/2012. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-5658 (FB) (JO)
VAAD L’HAFOTZAS SICHOS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,
-againstCHAIM YEHUDAH KRINSKY, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs:
JONATHAN COHEN
PRISCILLA CHENG
ELIE BRANDON GOLD
MITCHELL C. SHAPIRO
DAWN LYNETTE YUSTER
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL C.
SHAPIRO
245 West 17th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10011

For Defendants Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch,
Inc. and Merkos Lyinyonei Chinuch:
DAVID HOSP
GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
For Defendants Yehudah Krinsky, Yossef
Friedman, and Agudas Chasidei Chabad of
the United States:
CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiffs Vaad L’Hafotzas Sichos, Inc. and Zalman Chanin (“plaintiffs”) appeal
from the August 17, 2012 discovery order of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein denying with
prejudice plaintiffs’ outstanding motions to compel and motion for a protective order. As
discussed briefly below, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Orenstein’s discovery order in
full.

A discovery ruling by a magistrate judge is a non-dispositive matter, and as such
the Court will only set aside an order “that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900
F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990). This is a highly deferential standard. Magistrate judges have
broad discretion in resolving discovery matters, and a party seeking to overturn a discovery
order “generally bears a heavy burden.” Mental Disability Law Clinic v. Hogan, 739 F. Supp. 2d
201, 203-04 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
Plaintiffs have filed Rule 72(a) objections to Magistrate Judge Orenstein’s
recommendation, and appeal from the following rulings: (1) denial of plaintiffs’ motion to
compel defendants Chaim Yehudah Krinsky, Yossef Friedman, Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch,
Inc., Merkos Lyinyonei Chinuch, and Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the United States
(“defendants”) to conduct a new search for documents from Rabbi Sharfstein, the deputy of
Rabbi Krinsky, and Rabbi Friedman; (2) denial of plaintiffs’ motion to compel a file search of
defendants’ webmaster, system administrator, bookkeeper, and unidentified bookstore
employees; (3) denial of plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ production of board and
committee meeting minutes dating back to 1994; (4) denial of plaintiffs’ motion to compel
defendants’ production of correspondence to/from Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and
to/from Rabbi Hodakov from 1994 to the present; (5) denial of plaintiffs’ motion to compel
defendants’ production of financial information from 1990 to the present; and (6) quash of
plaintiffs’ subpoena of America Online, Inc.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions in this matter, as well as the transcript

2

of Magistrate Judge Orenstein’s discovery hearing, during which he ruled on the motions to
compel and motion for a protective order, the Court is unable to find any error, clear or
otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge’s discovery rulings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). During the hearing, Magistrate Judge Orenstein fully considered and addressed
the entirety of plaintiffs’ “voluminous submissions” concerning the outstanding discovery
matters. August 17, 2012 Transcript of Discovery Hearing at 18. Further, plaintiffs have not
presented the Court with any reason to believe that defendants have failed to search for and
produce documents in a good faith manner that are responsive to plaintiffs’ numerous
discovery requests. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Orenstein that plaintiffs’ motions
to compel are “overbroad” in the documents they seek, Tr. at 11, 17, 18, and going forward
urges the parties to work together in a collaborative manner to resolve any discovery disputes.
Defendants have indicated they are more than willing to work with plaintiffs to conduct
additional, narrowly tailored searches, and the Court fully believes that any future disputes
are capable of being resolved by the parties without further judicial intervention.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Orenstein’s August 17, 2012 discovery order is affirmed in
whole.

SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
December 18, 2012

3