Jablonski v. Special Counsel, Inc.

Filing 265

ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE WANG'S DISCOVERY ORDER for 163 Motion for Discovery, filed by Terri Jablonski. The Court finds Plaintiff's arguments unavailing and overrules Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Wang's or ders at ECF Nos. 158 (Written Order) and 159 (Transcript of March 10, 2022 Conference in which discovery rulings were made). Judge Wang's Discovery Order is affirmed, and Plaintiff's objections are overruled in their entirety. The parties are directed to continue discovery proceedings with Judge Wang. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at ECF No. 163. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/27/2023) (ate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
TERRI JABLONSKI,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
-against:
SPECIAL COUNSEL, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- :
:
x
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

16-CV-5243 (ALC)(OTW)
ORDER ADOPTING
JUDGE WANG’S
DISCOVERY ORDER

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural background of
this case. On January 3, 2019, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for
General Pretrial proceedings. ECF No. 71. This order follows from Judge Wang’s ruling on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Requests during a March 10, 2022 status conference.
See ECF Nos. 158 (“Judge Wang’s Written Order”) and No. 159 (Transcript of March 10, 2022
Conference in which discovery rulings were made) (collectively, “Judge Wang’s Discovery
Order”). Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Wang’s Discovery Order are at ECF No. 163,
Defendant’s Opposition is at ECF No. 164, and Plaintiff’s Reply is at ECF No. 165.
Upon review of Judge Wang’s Discovery Order, the parties’ submissions, and all other
relevant materials, Plaintiff’s discovery objections are OVERRULED in their entirety, and Judge
Wang’s Discovery Order is affirmed.

1

LEGAL STANDARD
The Court holds that Judge Wang’s Discovery Order is a non-dispositive pretrial order
reviewable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), “the
district judge … must consider timely objections to the magistrate judge's decision and modify or
set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Tiffany & Co. v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 13 Civ. 1041 (LTS)(DCF), 2013 WL 5677020, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 18, 2013).
“The magistrate judge's findings may be considered ‘clearly erroneous’ when ‘on the
entire evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.’” Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10047,
2020 WL 495460, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2020) (quoting Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234,
243 (2001) (citation omitted)). “A ruling is contrary to law ‘when it fails to apply or misapplies
relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.’” Brown v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 16-CV7333, 2019 WL 5188941, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2019) (quoting NIKE, Inc. v. Wu, 349
F.Supp.3d 346, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)).
“It is well-settled that a magistrate judge's resolution of a nondispositive matter should be
afforded substantial deference and may be overturned only if found to have been an abuse of
discretion.” Xie v. JPMorgan Chase Short-Term Disability Plan, et al., No. 15-CV-4546, 2018
WL 501605, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 19, 2018); Brown, 2019 WL 5188941, at *1. A magistrate
judge has broad discretion to manage discovery disputes. See Auto. Club of New York, Inc. v. The
Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, No. 11 Civ. 6746, 2015 WL 3404111, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
May 27, 2015). “Thus, the party seeking to overturn a magistrate judge's decision ... carries a

2

heavy burden.” Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 982 F.Supp.2d 260, 263 (S.D.N.Y.
2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

DISCUSSION
Though Plaintiff may be unhappy with Judge Wang’s ruling on the discovery requests,
her decisions were not erroneous or contrary to law. At the March 10, 2022 Conference, Judge
Wang stated that her rulings were “made on the record after reviewing the parties’ submissions.”
ECF No. 159, Transcript of Conference (“Tr.”) at 2:18-19. She noted that her Chambers spent
“an inordinate amount of time reviewing the submissions” and that the Court “undertook the
herculean effort of reviewing each of [Plaintiff’s] 59 document requests.” Tr. 3:8-16. Judge
Wang also stated that she “ended up having to go through the responses myself, with my
chambers' staff, for hours yesterday to try to understand what [Plaintiff was] trying to do.” Tr.
15:13-15. The record reflects that Judge Wang’s rulings to limit or deny the discovery requests
were because Plaintiff’s requests were duplicative, overly broad, not relevant, and/or privileged.
Limiting or denying requests for these reasons is well within a magistrate judge’s broad
discretion to manage discovery disputes. Further, “[p]aring down discovery requests to those
documents most essential to the case, offering meaningful compromises in response to an
objectionable document request, avoiding discovery disputes, and meeting and conferring in
good faith to resolve disputes without the need for motion practice are all critical obligations”
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Michael Kors, L.L.C. v. Su Yan Ye, No. 18 Civ.
2684 (KHP), 2019 WL 1517552, at *7(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2019).

3

Plaintiff has not met the “heavy burden” needed for the Court to overrule Judge Wang’s
discovery rulings. Plaintiff’s motion merely attempts to relitigate arguments that were already
thoughtfully considered in Judge Wang’s Discovery Order and the March 10, 2022 conference.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unavailing and overrules Plaintiff’s Objections to
Magistrate Judge Wang’s orders at ECF Nos. 158 (Written Order) and 159 (Transcript of March
10, 2022 Conference in which discovery rulings were made). Judge Wang’s Discovery Order is
affirmed, and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled in their entirety. The parties are directed to
continue discovery proceedings with Judge Wang. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the open motion at ECF No. 163.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
March 27, 2023

____________________________________
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
United States District Judge

4