Akram et al v. Mughal et al
Filing
94
DECISION AND ORDER. The defendant's 89 application is denied. I adopt Judge Shield's sensible report and recommendation in its entirety.Ordered by Judge Ann M Donnelly on 1/9/2023. (DG)
Case 2:17-cv-02758-AMD-AYS Document 94 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1171
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
WASEEM AKRAM, NADEEM AKRAM,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
: DECISION & ORDER
– against –
: 17-CV-2758 (AMD) (AYS)
KHURSHID MUGHAL,
:
Defendant.
:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
The plaintiffs brought this action alleging breach of contract in May 2017. The plaintiffs
repeatedly missed discovery deadlines, prompting Magistrate Judge Anne Shields to impose
monetary sanctions on two separate occasions. (Court Orders, February 6, 2020, February 24,
2020). Nevertheless, the plaintiffs continued to ignore their discovery obligations, including to
make a diligent search of documents responsive to the defendant’s requests. The defendant
moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint. After a
hearing on September 8, 2022, at which one of the plaintiffs testified, Judge Shields denied the
defendant’s motion to strike the complaint, but “in view of the serious discovery violations and
misrepresentations,” precluded the plaintiffs from introducing any evidence other than the
settlement agreement at trial and ordered them to pay all attorney’s fees and costs related to the
defendant’s motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 72.) The defendant moved for reconsideration
under Local Civil Rule 6.3 (ECF No. 78), and filed an interlocutory notice of appeal. (ECF No.
79.) In an October 12, 2022 order, Judge Shields granted the motion for reconsideration and
adhered to her decision. (ECF No. 80.) The defendant then asked Judge Shields’ permission to
appeal the September 8 and October 12 orders to the Second Circuit. (ECF No. 82.) The Second
Case 2:17-cv-02758-AMD-AYS Document 94 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1172
Circuit held the interlocutory appeal in abeyance pending Judge Shield’s decision on the
defendant’s motion for leave to appeal. (ECF No. 84.) On November 16, 2022, finding no
ground to certify the September 8 and October 12 orders as immediately appealable, Judge
Shields denied the motion, and recommended that “the assigned District Judge decline to certify
the Discovery Order as immediately appealable to the Second Circuit on any ground
whatsoever.” (ECF No. 88.) The defendant filed a timely objection to that order. (ECF No. 89.)
For the reasons stated below, I adopt Judge Shield’s report and recommendation in its entirety.
When a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district
judge reviews the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objects
de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”)
Having presided over this case for its entirety, Judge Shields is thoroughly familiar with
the nature of the discovery requests and the plaintiffs’ multiple discovery violations. After
considering that evidence, including one plaintiff’s testimony at the sanctions hearing, Judge
Shields declined to recommend that I dismiss the plaintiff’s case. Nevertheless, she imposed
serious sanctions against the plaintiffs, which included precluding them from introducing any
evidence, except the settlement agreement, at trial.
Judge Shields’ order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. A final
decision for the purpose of an interlocutory appeal is one that “ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 802
F.3d 242, 246 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)).
“Under the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order can also be deemed final and
2
Case 2:17-cv-02758-AMD-AYS Document 94 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1173
immediately appealable under § 1291 if it ‘(1) conclusively determines a disputed question; (2)
resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) is
effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.’” Id. (quoting EM Ltd. v. Republic of
Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 205-06 (2d Cir. 2012)). While Judge Shields’ order was conclusive, it
did not “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action;” evaluation
of the appropriateness of the sanctions would require “the reviewing court to inquire into the
importance of the information sought or the adequacy or truthfulness of a response.” Linde v.
Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty.,
Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 205 (1999)).
Nor is the order certifiable as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which
permits a district judge to certify that an order in a civil action not otherwise appealable
“involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.” Judge Shields’ discovery order does not involve a “controlling
question of law.” Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions upon a party for failure to comply with a
discovery order, so long as those sanctions are “just.” Whether the complaint should be stricken
is a “fact-specific inquiry, and inappropriate for interlocutory review, as Section 1292(b) is not . .
. a mechanism ‘for securing early resolution of disputes concerning whether the trial court
properly applied the law to the facts.” In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 986 F.
Supp. 2d 524, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotations omitted); see also Chase Manhattan
Bank, N.A. v. Turner & Newall, PLC, 964 F.2d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding interlocutory
discovery orders are generally not appealable).
3
Case 2:17-cv-02758-AMD-AYS Document 94 Filed 01/09/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1174
Accordingly, the defendant’s application is denied. I adopt Judge Shield’s sensible report
and recommendation in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 6, 2023
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?