Lastra v. City Of New York et al

Filing 221

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 215 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's late objections, the Defendants respectfully request that their opposition be due on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Nicolette Pellegrin filed by City Of New York, Antoine, Edmonds. The Court has considered all of the plaintiff's arguments. To the extent that they are not referred to specifically above, they are either moot or without merit. The plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Judge's July 1, 2020 Order are overruled. The Clerk is directed to close all docket entries relating to the Objections including Dkt. Nos. 210, 211, 215 to 218, and 220. This Order will be filed on ECF by which the plaintiff has agreed to accept service. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/18/2020) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
JAMES LASTRA,
Plaintiff,

16-cv-3088 (JGK)

- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK et al.,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff, James Lastra, has filed objections to
discovery rulings by Magistrate Judge Lehrburger in a July 1,
2020 Order. Dkt. No. 204 (“Order”). That Order contained one
ruling directing a procedure for the defendants to follow
relating to production of relevant portions of the Patrol Guide,
Id. ¶ 1, and denied the Plaintiff’s request to take photographs
of Precinct 8, Id. ¶ 2.

The Order also required the plaintiff

to produce four categories of documents, Id. ¶¶ 3-6, and
contained Scheduling Orders, Id. ¶¶ 7-8.
I.
When considering objections to an order issued by a
Magistrate Judge concerning discovery-related matters, the Court
“shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Thompson v.
Keane, No. 95 Civ. 2442, 1996 WL 229887, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6,

1996). An order is “clearly erroneous” only when “the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Surles v. Air
France, 210 F. Supp. 2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted). An order is “contrary to law” when it
“fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or
rules of procedure.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A
Magistrate Judge's resolution of discovery disputes deserves
substantial deference. See, e.g., Weiss v. La Suisse, 161 F.
Supp. 2d 305, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
II.
While the plaintiff has asserted general complaints about
the conduct of discovery in this case, the plaintiff has failed
to assert any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
rulings in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, namely that he produce any
messages or recordings relating to his claims or be precluded
from introducing such evidence, that he produce any factual
evidence relating to his damages or loss of income, and that he
produce a release for his neurologist, Dr. Fleming. Therefore,
to the extent that any of the plaintiff’s complaints could be
read as an objection to those orders, the objections are
overruled.
The plaintiff does object to paragraph 6 which required the
plaintiff to provide “a fully executed release for records from
2

the arrest at issue in this case and for a list of his prior
arrests, if any.”

Order ¶ 6. The parties generally refer to

this part of the Order as a request for a Section 160.50 Release
and as one that is required by the Plan.

The plaintiff argues

that his former counsel, in fact, provided this release in June
2017, and he has provided a copy of that release, although it is
marked up with notations limiting its use.

Defense counsel

asserts that the release was provided well before she entered
the case and it was not in the file.

In any event, the

defendants argue that the issue is now moot.

The plaintiff

previously provided the release and it should simply be provided
in a usable form without the notations.

That is a reasonable

request and consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
Therefore, the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order are
overruled, and the plaintiff should provide a clean copy of the
release within 14 days.
The plaintiff objects to paragraph 2 of the Order that
denied the plaintiff’s request to take photographs of Precinct
8.

It was well within the Magistrate Judge’s discretion to

balance the relevance of the photographs in this case with the
disruption entailed by taking the photographs, particularly
during a pandemic, and conclude that any relevance such
photographs may have was outweighed by the burdens that such

3

photographing would entail. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1).
The plaintiff objects to the fact that the defendants have
not produced all of the sections of the Patrol Guide that the
plaintiff considers relevant to this case. However, the
Magistrate Judge established a procedure for the defendants to
identify relevant sections of the Patrol Guide and to provide
the plaintiff with the relevant sections of the Patrol Guide
that were in effect in 2014 when the plaintiff was arrested. See
Order ¶ 1.

There is nothing erroneous or contrary to law in the

procedure established by the Magistrate Judge.

To the extent

that the plaintiff believes that the procedure has not been
followed, the plaintiff can raise that issue with the Magistrate
Judge, but it is not a basis to overrule the procedure
established by the Magistrate Judge for the production of
relevant portions of the Patrol Guide in effect in 2014. The
objection to paragraph 1 is overruled.
The plaintiff objects to the discovery schedule established
by the Magistrate Judge for the conclusion of discovery. Order
¶¶ 7, 8. These objections are undoubtedly moot because discovery
has been stalled by the plaintiff’s objections and the
Magistrate Judge will have to reset the schedule because
discovery plainly has not been completed by August 31, 2020,
although the schedule was wholly reasonable when the Magistrate
4

judge fixed it on July 1, 2020, particularly in view of the fact
that this case has been pending since 2016. Therefore, the
objections are overruled as moot.
In addition to the objections raised with respect to the
Magistrate Judge’s rulings in his July 1, 2020 Order, the
plaintiff levels other complaints against defense counsel, in
particular about the identification of other police officers.
The plaintiff fails to point to the specific rulings of the
Magistrate Judge that he is complaining about, and he has failed
to show that any such rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.

5

CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the plaintiff’s arguments.
To the extent that they are not referred to specifically above,
they are either moot or without merit.
The plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Judge’s July
1, 2020 Order are overruled. The Clerk is directed to close all
docket entries relating to the Objections including Dkt. Nos.
210, 211, 215 to 218, and 220.
This Order will be filed on ECF by which the plaintiff has
agreed to accept service.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
September 18, 2020

_____/s/ John G. Koeltl________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

6