Komatsu v. The City of New York et al

Filing 446

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to Judge Gorenstein's November 24, 2020, Order (Dkt. No. 440) are overruled. Judge Gorenstein's acted within his discretion when he extended the discovery deadline in this acti on. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/10/2020) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:18-cv-03698-LGS-GWG Document 446 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
TOWAKI KOMATSU,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

18 Civ. 3698 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, Judge Gorenstein extended the deadline for
discovery in this action to March 1, 2021. Dkt. No. 440.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter objecting to Judge
Gorenstein’s extension. Dkt. No. 443. On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed another letter
objecting to Judge Gorenstein’s extension. Dkt. No. 444.
WHEREAS, for objections to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on nondispositive matters,
district courts must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “A finding is ‘clearly
erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Wu
Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A ruling is contrary to law if it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 5236, 2017
WL 5054727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2017) (internal citation omitted). “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

Case 1:18-cv-03698-LGS-GWG Document 446 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2

Chase Short-Term Disability Plan, 15 Civ. 4546, 2018 WL 501605, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19,
2018) (internal citation omitted).
WHEREAS, a magistrate judge’s decision to modify a schedule is evaluated under an
abuse of discretion standard. See Wega v. Ctr. For Disability Rights Inc., 457 Fed. App’x. 56,
59 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b) (changing a discovery schedule is permitted
with judicial consent). It is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Gorenstein’s November 24, 2020, Order
(Dkt. No. 440) are overruled. Judge Gorenstein’s acted within his discretion when he extended
the discovery deadline in this action.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.

Dated: December 10, 2020
New York, New York