Komatsu v. The City of New York et al

Filing 530

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration, at Dkt. Nos. 503, 515, 516, 521 and 529 are DENIED as they are untimely. It is further ORDERED that objections to Judge Gorenstein's, Orders, at Dkt. Nos. 500, 502 and 526 are overruled. Judge Gorenstein's Orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is further ORDERED that the requests to amend the Complaint, at Dkt. No. 522, and file discovery materials under seal, at Dkt. No. 515, are denied. General pre-trial requests, including permission to amend a Complaint and to file discovery materials, should be addressed to Judge Gorenstein. See Dkt. No. 27 (referring this matter to Judge Gorenstein for general pre-trial). Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not permitted to provide legal advice. Pro se parties may seek legal advice through the New York Legal Assistance Group ("NYLAG") for Pro Se Litigants. NYLAG's contact information is included below. 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 3/26/2021) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

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 January 15, 2021, Judge Gorenstein issued several orders regarding the
procedures to be followed regarding confidential materials. Dkt. Nos. 473, 474, 475.
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2021, Judge Gorenstein issued an order denying pro se
Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration and objection to any restrictions on his use of confidential
documents produced by Defendants. Dkt. No. 485.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, Judge Gorenstein issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s
request to stay all orders that have authorized Defendants to seek sanctions against Plaintiff for
failing to comply with discovery deadlines. Dkt. No. 497.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021, Judge Gorenstein issued an Order concerning Plaintiff’s
possible non-compliance with a prior Confidentiality Order. Dkt. No. 524.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on February 5, 2021, requesting reconsideration of the
Order at Dkt. No. 497. Dkt. No. 500.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on February 8, 2021, requesting reconsideration of the
Order at Dkt. No. 485. Dkt. No. 502
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on February 8, 2021, requesting reconsideration of the
Orders at Dkt. Nos. 473, 474, 475. Dkt. No. 503.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed letters on February 25 and 28, 2021, requesting reconsideration

of the Order at Dkt. No. 239 and requesting permission to file certain discovery document under
seal. Dkt. Nos. 515, 516.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on March 9, 2021, requesting legal advice. Dkt. No. 519.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on March 13, 2021, again requesting reconsideration of
the Orders at Dkt. Nos. 473, 474, 475. Dkt. No. 521.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on March 17, 2021, requesting permission to file a further
amended complaint. Dkt. No. 522.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed an appeal on March 19, 2021, requesting reconsideration of the
Order at Dkt. No. 524. Dkt. No. 526.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a letter on March 26, 2021, requesting reconsideration of the
Orders at Dkt. Nos. 239, 418. Dkt. No. 529.
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 Chase Short-Term
Disability Plan, 15 Civ. 4546, 2018 WL 501605, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018) (internal citation
omitted).

WHEREAS, an Order regarding the treatment of confidential documents is nondispositive.
See MacCartney v. O’Dell, No. 14 Civ. 3925, 2017 WL 766906, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2017).
WHEREAS, an Order granting a stay is nondispositive. See Hatemi v. M&T Bank Corp.,
No. 14 Civ. 1103S, 2015 WL 224421, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2015).
WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the
Court’s determination of the original motion. See Local Civil Rule 6.3. It is hereby
ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration, at Dkt. Nos. 503, 515, 516, 521 and 529
are DENIED as they are untimely. It is further
ORDERED that objections to Judge Gorenstein’s, Orders, at Dkt. Nos. 500, 502 and 526
are overruled. Judge Gorenstein’s Orders were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is
further
ORDERED that the requests to amend the Complaint, at Dkt. No. 522, and file discovery
materials under seal, at Dkt. No. 515, are denied. General pre-trial requests, including permission to
amend a Complaint and to file discovery materials, should be addressed to Judge Gorenstein. See
Dkt. No. 27 (referring this matter to Judge Gorenstein for general pre-trial).
Plaintiff is advised that the Court is not permitted to provide legal advice. Pro se parties
may seek legal advice through the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) for Pro Se
Litigants. NYLAG’s contact information is included below.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.
Dated: March 26, 2021
New York, New York

Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services
to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys.

Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented
Civil Litigants in Federal Court in Manhattan
and White Plains
The NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se
Litigants in the Southern District of New
York is a free legal clinic staffed by
attorneys and paralegals to assist those
who are representing themselves or
planning to represent themselves in civil
lawsuits in the Southern District of New
York. The clinic, which is not part of or
run by the court, assists litigants with
federal civil cases including cases
involving civil rights, employment
discrimination, labor law, social security
benefits, foreclosure and tax.
To make an appointment for a
consultation, call [phone] or
come by either clinic during office
hours. Please note that a governmentissued photo ID is required to enter
either building.
The clinic offers in-person
appointments only. The clinic does
not offer assistance over the
phone or by email.

Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
Room LL22
40 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007
[phone]
Open weekdays
10 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Closed on federal and court holidays
——————————————

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and Courthouse
300 Quarropas St
White Plains, NY 10601
[phone]
Open Wednesday
1 p.m. - 5 p.m.
Closed on federal and court holidays

Disclaimer: The information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not legal
advice or a substitute for legal counsel, nor does it constitute advertising or a solicitation.