Baez Romero v. DHL Express Inc et al

Filing 111

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Baez Romero's motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying his request to take additional depositions is GRANTED with respect to Santiago and Nuttall and DENIED with respect to Ayala and Ruggiero. T he Parties are ordered to schedule the depositions for Santiago and Nuttall by February 21, 2014, and the depositions must take place before March 17,2014. This resolves Docket Entries Number 105 and 107. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/6/2014) (cd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAURICIO BAEZ ROMERO,

,.

:#:: ~ .~ )1., .

~ ~L':'~~): _..
",' ...._-.o-."----"'-r·_

-=-~-_-"-_.~,

.

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM

OPI~ION & ORDER

- against12 Civ. 1942 (LAK) (RLE)
DHL EXPRESS, I~C., et aI.,
Defendants.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Mauricio Baez Romero ("Baez Romero") brings this action for

employment discrimination and breach of the duty of fair representation against Defendants
DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") and Local 295, I.B.T. ("Local 295). Before the Court is Baez
Romero's motion for reconsideration, (Docket Nos. 105, 107), of the Court's decision to deny
his request for additional depositions. (Docket No. 99.) For the reasons that follow, Baez
Romero's request is

GRA~TED

in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND

On September 30, 20l3, Baez Romero requested permission to depose additional
individuals. (Docket No. 87). DHL objected to Baez Romero's request to depose Frank Ayala
("Ayala"), Bill Santiago ("Santiago"), and John l\uttall ("Nuttall"), (Docket No. 88), and Local
295 objected to his request to depose Jack Ruggiero ("Ruggiero"). (Docket No. 89.) On
December 12, 2013, the Court denied Baez Romero's motion. (Docket ).Jo. 99.) On December
30,2013, Baez Romero filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision, arguing that
Defendants had previously agreed to the depositions of Santiago and ).Juttall. (Docket )Jo. 105.)
The Parties appeared before the Court on January 8,2014 for a telephone conference. At the

telephone conference, Baez Romero asserted that he had an email from his former attorney, John
Lambros ("Lambros"), which demonstrated that Defendants had agreed to the depositions of
Santiago and Nuttall. Defendants argued that Baez Romero should not be able to depose
Santiago and Nuttall because this Court had already denied his application to depose them. On
January 1 2014, the Court received a letter from Baez Romero in which he asked the Court
again to reconsider its denial of his request to depose Ayala and to which he attached a copy of
an email from Lambros concerning the depositions of Santiago and Nuttall. (Docket No. 107.)
The email, dated September 25,2013, and addressed to "Mauricio Baez," stated: "Again, please
do not allow the defendants to avoid producing Santiago and Nuttell [sic] for deposition. They
are necessary and the defendants agreed to produce them." (!d.) The Defendants did not file a
response to this letter.
IHSCUSSION

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must show that the court
overlooked factual matters or controlling precedent "that might have materially influenced its
earlier decision." Robins v. Max Mara. US.A .. Inc., 923 F. Supp. 460, 473 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
(citing Nforser v. AT&T Info. s:.vs., 715 F. Supp. 516,517 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). This criteria is
strictly construed against the moving party. See Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assoc.. L.P., 153 F.R.D.
60,65 (S.D.KY. 1994); New York News Inc. v. Netvspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union ofNew
York, 139 F.R.D. 294, 294-95 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aird, 972 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1992). A motion for
reconsideration is not a "forum for new theories or for 'plugging the gaps of a lost motion with
additional matters.'" CMNY Capital, L P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 821 F. Supp. 1

162 (S.D.N.V.

1993) (citing McMahan & Co. v. Donaldson, LLdkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 727

Supp.833,

2

833 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). Further, reconsideration is not a vehicle for the losing party to argue that
"the Court improperly weighed and construed the facts." See Davidson v. Scully, 1

F. Supp. 2d

458, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Motions for reconsideration lie within the sound discretion of the
district court.

~McCarthy

v. Alanson, 714 F.2d 234,237 (2d CiL 1983); see also FED. R. CIv. P.

72(a); LOCAL CIv. R. 6.3 (providing instruction on content and service of motions for
reconsideration).
The Court finds credible evidence that Defendants previously agreed to allow Baez
Romero to depose Bill Santiago and John Nuttall, and that this constitutes new factual matter
that would have materially influenced the Court's decision. The Parties' agreement that a
deposition will take place is compelling evidence that the Parties had concluded that the
witnesses could provide relevant testimony. The Court finds this more probative than the
determination made by the Court based on the submissions by Baez Romero as a pro se. Baez
Romero's motion for reconsideration is therefore GRANTED with respect to Santiago and
Nuttall.
With respect to Ayala and Ruggiero, Baez Romero's requests for reconsideration do not
demonstrate that the Court has overlooked any factual matters or controlling precedent that
might have materially influenced its earlier decision. Baez Romero argues that Ayala was the
"senior human resources individual" responsible for investigating his complaints about DHL
Express. (Docket Nos. 105, 107) With respect to Ruggiero, Baez Romero restates his argument
that Ruggiero was involved in investigating his grievances for the union. In sum, Baez Romero
indicates that he disagrees with the Court's decision, but that alone is not a basis for
reconsideration. Therefore, with respect to Ayala and Ruggiero, Baez Romero's request for
reconsideration is DENIED.
3

CO~CLUSIO~

Baez Romero's motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision denying his request to
take additional depositions is

GRA~TED

with respect to Santiago and Nuttall and

DE~IED

with respect to Ayala and Ruggiero. The Parties are ordered to schedule the depositions for
Santiago and Nuttall by February 21,2014, and the depositions must take place before March 17,
2014. This resolves Docket Entries Number 105 and 107.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of February 2014
~ew York, ~ew York

rk-4-t~

The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge

4