Clark v. New York State Office of the State Comptroller et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That the defendants' objection (Dkt. No. 114) is DENIED and Magistrate Judge Homer's August 31, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 111) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/21/2012. (jel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
DONNA CLARK,
Plaintiff,

1:09-cv-716
(GLS/CFH)

v.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE
STATE COMPTROLLER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Donna Clark
Pro Se
43 Raymo Street
Albany, NY 12209
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
State Defendants
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
CSEA Defendants
Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.
143 Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7125, Capitol Station
Albany, NY 12224

Defendant John Wapner

KELLY L. MUNKWITZ
Assistant Attorney General

DAREN J. RYLEWICZ, ESQ.

Furman, Kornfeld Law Firm
61 Broadway
26th Floor, Suite 403
New York, NY 10006

KATHRYN C. COLLINS, ESQ.
NEIL S. KORNFELD, ESQ.

Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Donna Clark commenced this action against various
defendants on June 23, 2009. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On August 31,
2012, Magistrate Judge David Homer issued an Order which directed state
defendants1 Jeanine Dominique and Celia Gonzales to serve written
responses to “deposition questions” posed by Clark. (Dkt. No. 111.)
Pending is the state’s objection to Judge Homer’s Order. (See Dkt. No.
114.) For the reasons that follow, defendants’ objection is denied.
II. Standard of Review
When reviewing an objection to a pretrial non-dispositive motion
decided by a magistrate judge, the court will not disturb such an order
unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This standard governs a district court’s review of a
1

This objection is only filed on behalf of these two state defendants.
2

magistrate judge’s orders concerning discovery disputes. See Thomas E.
Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990). Under a
clearly erroneous standard, a district court can reconsider a magistrate
judge’s order only if the court “‘is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.’” See Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d
236, 240 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Under a contrary to law standard, a district court
can reverse a magistrate judge’s order only if the order fails to apply the
relevant law. See Olais-Castro v. United States, 416 F.2d 1155, 1158 n.8
(9th Cir. 1969) (“The term contrary to law means contrary to any existing
law.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “[M]agistrate judges
are afforded broad discretion in resolving non-dispositive disputes and
reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused.” Am. Stock Exch.,
LLC v. Mopex, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 87, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
III. Discussion
A.

Defendants’ Objections
Upon review of the state defendants’ letter objections, (see Dkt. No.

114), and having read the transcript of the August 30, 2012, hearing held
before Judge Homer, (see Dkt. No. 122), the court affirms Judge Homer’s
3

decision. In summary, Judge Homer’s ruling was well within his discretion,
compelling the defendants to answer written deposition questions in writing
and sworn under oath was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendants’ objection (Dkt. No. 114) is DENIED
and Magistrate Judge Homer’s August 31, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 111) is
AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 21, 2012
Albany, New York

4