Levin v. Johnson and Johnson et al

Filing 330

ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the motions are decided as follows: (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) 1. DE 291 is terminated as moot; 2. DE 292 is terminated as moot.; 3. DE 300 is denied. ;4. DE 304 is terminated as moot.; 5. DE 318 is denied. Defendants are respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Order on Mr. Levin at his address of record on or before January 28, 2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 1/26/2022. (Ortiz, Grisel)

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 8044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ISAAC LEVIN, an individual,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

-against-

16-CV-06631 (JMA)(JMW)

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, a national for-profit corporate
entity, JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a national for-profit corporate entity,
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY n/k/a DowDuPont, a
multinational for-profit corporate entity, and KIK CUSTOM
PRODUCTS, INC., a multinational for-profit entity,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
WICKS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court are three motions, 1 all stemming from a prior Order (DE 277) on a fee dispute
involving Defendants’ expert. On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion (DE 300) pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(3), for reconsideration of the Honorable Steven L. Tiscione’s May 13, 2021 Order (DE 277)
granting Defendants’ motion (DE 255) to compel payment of expert fees of Dr. Seal within 60 days.
Plaintiff’s motion also requested a stay of all proceedings related Dr. Seal’s expert fees until the subject
motion for reconsideration was decided. (Id.) Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. opposed the motion (DE 301, DE 302, DE 303) and Plaintiff filed a reply (DE 306). 2 On
July 19, 2021, Defendants J&J filed a letter motion (304) for a pre-motion conference for a briefing

On June 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter motion for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of filing the
subject Rule 60(b)(3) motion. (DE 291.) On the same date Plaintiff filed a duplicative letter motion, but
the second version contained exhibits. (DE 292.) Plaintiff filed the subject motion before the Court ruled
on DE 291 and DE 292. Those letter motions (DE 291 and DE 292) are therefore terminated as moot.
1

Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (incorrectly sued as Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.) are collectively referred to herein as “J&J.”
2

1

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 8045

schedule on their anticipated motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for sanctions against Plaintiff for
failure to comply with Judge Tiscione’s May 13, 2021 Court Order to pay Dr. Seal’s fees. On July 27,
2021, Plaintiff filed opposition (DE 307) requesting that Plaintiff’s motion (DE 304) be denied until his
motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) (DE 300) was decided. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a
motion to compel (DE 318) copies of checks regarding Dr. Seal’s expert fees. Defendants opposed (DE
322) and Plaintiff, concededly without permission of the Court, filed a reply (DE 324).
I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

A. Background
On April 20, 2021, Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to pay expert fees. (DE 255.) Plaintiff
opposed. (DE 259.) Judge Tiscione heard oral argument on May 12, 2021 and made a ruling on the
record granting Defendants’ motion. (DE 277; DE 290.) Before ruling, Judge Tiscione considered
extensive arguments regarding whether Plaintiff was required to pay Dr. Seal’s fee for deposition
preparation and the deposition itself. 3 (DE 290.) Plaintiff vehemently argued that Defendants were
submitting a fraudulent bill to Plaintiff. (Id. at 16, 18, 30, 34, 36-38, 43.) Plaintiff argued that he should
not have to pay Dr. Seal’s fee for what he understood to be two separate expert reports that did not match
up. (Id. at 39, 46). The Court noted on the record that it is not unusual for a party to file an expert
disclosure that is not identical to an expert declaration in support of a motion for summary judgment, but
Plaintiff refused to accept this. (Id. at 40, 47.) A review of the transcript further demonstrates there
appeared to be another misconception that Dr. Seal was double-charging because there were two separate
invoices for his services, one in December of 2018 and the other in April of 2021. (DE 290; DE 300.)
Defendants confirmed on the record that they disclosed both bills, but were only requesting the fee for the
second bill, containing Dr. Seal’s deposition preparation fees and deposition appearance fees – not for the
expert report and declaration. (Id. at 34-35.) During the hearing, it was repeatedly explained to Plaintiff

Defendants originally moved to compel the fees of Dr. Seal and Dr. Lazar, but withdrew the portion of
the motion related to Dr. Lazar. (DE 290 at 31.)

3

2

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 8046

that the subject invoice was not a duplication and that Defendants were not asking him to pay a bill twice.
(Id. at 35.) Plaintiff conceded that he must pay for the deposition portion of the fee, but continued to
dispute the preparation portion claiming it was fraudulent and duplicative. (DE 290 at 38-39, 46-47.)
Ultimately, Judge Tiscione ordered that Plaintiff must pay Dr. Seal’s second invoice limited to the actual
deposition appearance and time spent preparing for the deposition, within 60 days. (Id. at 48.)
Plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments, namely that Defendants and their expert Dr. Seal
submitted a fraudulent invoice to Plaintiff regarding Dr. Seal’s fee for his deposition and deposition
preparation. (DE 300.) Plaintiff argues that there are two versions of the bill and that Dr. Seal testified at
his deposition that he had already been paid in full. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the April 2021 invoice
produced prior to Dr. Seal’s deposition was purposely left blank so that Plaintiff could not ask Dr. Seal
questions about the fee breakdown and so Defendants could “beef it up.” (Id.) Plaintiff further argues
that Defense counsel and Dr. Seal worked in concert to lie and deceive him and that the fees are not
reasonable. (Id.) Since the May 12, 2021 hearing, Plaintiff states that he has paid $960 for Dr. Seal’s
deposition and $1,300 for Dr. Seal’s deposition preparation, but requests that the $9,540 balance be
stayed and stricken. (Id.) No new facts or overlooked law is identified.
J&J opposes, asserting that nothing fraudulent has occurred. (DE 301.) Defendants assert that:
Dr. Seal prepared an expert report and declaration in support of a summary judgment motion (which the
Court denied without prejudice, see Electronic Order dated 6/17/2019) in Fall of 2018 and submitted an
invoice to Defendants on December 5, 2018, not including deposition preparation and fees; Defendants
paid the invoice in full; Defendants provided Plaintiff with a copy of Dr. Seal’s first bill prior to Dr.
Seal’s deposition; Plaintiff deposed Dr. Seal on April 14, 2021; and, Dr. Seal submitted another invoice
the next day for his preparation and attending the deposition totaling $11,880. (Id.) Defendants also filed
a Declaration by counsel for Defendant Michelle M. Bufano, and a Declaration by Dr. Seal (DE 302; DE
303), setting forth the same assertions.

3

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 8047

In reply, Plaintiff reiterates that he has paid the portion of the fee for the deposition Dr. Seal
appeared for, points again to Dr. Seal’s two separate reports, and argues that Defendants created the
Declarations under lies and false pretenses. (DE 306.)

B. Discussion
Rule 60(b) provides that a party may be relieved from, inter alia, an order for mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). It is
considered “a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief invoked only if the moving party demonstrates
exceptional circumstances.” Juliao v. Charles Rutenberg Realty, Inc., 14-CV-808 (JMA) (AYS), 2020
WL 2513443, at * 2 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Relief under
Rule 60(b)(3) “is only available if the moving party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the
opposing party engaged in fraud or other misconduct. Tyson v. City of N.Y., 81 F. App’x 398, 400 (2d
Cir. 2003). Relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) “cannot serve as an attempt to relitigate the merits . . . To
obtain relief, the movant must have been prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case.” Breslow v.
Schlesinger, 284 F.R.D. 78, 82 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
Pursuant to Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and
Eastern Districts of New York, a motion for reconsideration must be served within 14 days after the
Court’s decision on the original motion is entered. E.D.N.Y. Local R. 6.3.
First, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Judge Tiscione’s Order on the original motion was made on
May 12, 2021 and the Order was entered on May 13, 2021. (DE 277.) The subject motion (DE 300) was
not filed until July 12, 2021, 60 days after the Order was entered. Plaintiff’s pro se status does not in and
of itself exempt him from compliance with deadlines. See Miller v. U.S., 2021 WL 2685522, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2021). “[F]ailure to adhere to the time limits prescribed by the rule may be excused
where circumstances warrant.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., v. Swancoat, No. 08 Civ. 5672(JGK), 2011 WL
165420, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2011). Considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court exercises its
discretion and will consider Plaintiff’s motion. Darnley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., No. 06-CV-4265

4

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 8048

(DLI), 2010 WL 103791 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2010) (exercising discretion to consider untimely motion to
reconsider in light of party’s pro se status). Indeed, this is not the first time Plaintiff has ignored filing
deadlines. See, e.g., DE 260 (motion to reconsider filed 104 days after deadline). Plaintiff is

forewarned again that filing deadlines must be complied with.
Plaintiff makes the identical fraud arguments here as he did in opposition to the original motion.
A review of the parties’ submissions and Judge Tiscione’s hearing transcript, reveals that Plaintiff was
admittedly confused as to why Dr. Seal prepared an expert report and a separate declaration in support of
Defendants’ prior summary judgment motion. Plaintiff also misunderstood that Defendants paid Dr. Seal
for preparation of those reports, and that the second invoice, which is the only invoice he is responsible
for, only consists of Dr. Seal’s deposition and deposition preparation fees. None of the arguments
Plaintiff makes establish clear and convincing evidence that Defendants engaged in fraud. See Aneja v.
M.A. Angeliades, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 9678(LAP)., 2010 WL 199681, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2010)
(holding that even if plaintiff’s motions were construed liberally, he did not demonstrate
misrepresentations by his adversary, “let alone a misrepresentation that arises to the level of fraud”);
Tyson, 81 Fed. Appx. 398, 400 (finding that pro se Plaintiff’s arguments about allegedly false documents
were mere attempts to relitigate the original motion). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
is hereby denied, and the portion of that motion seeking a stay of all proceedings related to Dr. Seal’s
expert fees until final adjudication of the motion is therefore moot.
II.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Defendants’ letter motion (304) for a pre-motion conference for a briefing schedule on their
anticipated motion pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) for sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to comply with
Judge Tiscione’s May 13, 2021 Court Order, is decided as follows: The letter motion for a pre-motion
conference is denied. The court waives its pre-motion conference requirement and grants Defendants’
request to file a motion pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). The parties are directed to file a proposed briefing
schedule by February 8, 2022.

5

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 8049

III.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants J&J and KIK to provide “all the checks paid by Ms.
Bufano to her experts . . . to see those check [sic] to verify whether she paid anything significant or tried
to extort money from Levin.” (DE 318.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff is merely seeking to re-litigate an issue that was already decided
by this Court when they moved to compel Plaintiff to pay Dr. Seal’s expert fees (DE 255 – the original
motion underlying Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion).
Plaintiff concedes that filing a reply (DE 324) violated the Courts rules, as the undersigned’s
Individual Rules at § 3(A) expressly prohibit replies on letter motions. Nonetheless, in light of Plaintiff’s
pro se status, the Court reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s reply. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’
experts are not qualified, requests Dr. Lazar’s invoices, which are not the subject of any dispute before the
Court, and discusses delays and discovery disclosure issues, unrelated to Dr. Seal’s fees – the subject of
his letter motion in the first place (DE 318). Plaintiff also raises the same argument that he already raised
on his Rule 60(b)(3) motion (DE 300), namely that Defendants did not provide the second invoice, which
contained Dr. Seal’s fee for the deposition and deposition prep, until after Dr. Seal was deposed.
“[A] motion to compel is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court.” Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Kohler Co., No. CV 08-867(SJF)(AKT), 2010 WL 1930270, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010). “The
party seeking the discovery must make a prima facie showing that the discovery sought is more than merely
a fishing expedition.” Id. The moving party has the burden of showing the discovery sought is relevant .
New Falls Corp. v. Soni, CV 16-6805 (ADS) (AKT), 2020 WL 2836787, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020).
Here, Plaintiff’s continued accusations of fraud and request for purported canceled checks
regarding Defendants’ experts are not relevant to the claims in this action - allegations that Johnson and

Johnson Baby Shampoo contained toxic chemicals that caused Plaintiff to develop a tumor on
the back of his head (DE 158). Moreover, at this juncture the request is moot in light of Judge
Tiscione’s May 12, 2021 Order granting Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to pay Dr. Seal’s fees,

6

Case 2:16-cv-06631-JMA-JMW Document 330 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 8050

and the undersigned’s denial or Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that Order (see Section I.). Plaintiff’s
motion to compel is an attempted third bite at the apple. Further, Plaintiff’s request for cancelled checks
related to Dr. Lazar’s services is completely irrelevant as Defendants withdrew their request for Plaintiff
to pay Dr. Lazar’s fees. (DE 322.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (DE 318) is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motions are decided as follows:
1. DE 291 is terminated as moot.
2. DE 292 is terminated as moot.
3. DE 300 is denied.
4. DE 304 is terminated as moot.
5. DE 318 is denied.
Defendants are respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Order on Mr. Levin at his address of
record on or before January 28, 2022.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 26, 2021

S O

O R D E R E D:

James M. Wicks

/S/

JAMES M. WICKS
United States Magistrate Judge

7