Esposito v. Gary et al

Filing 278

ORDER denying 265 Motion for Reconsideration re 265 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 264 Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion to St ay, filed by Luisa Castagna Esposito. Plaintiff has not met the standard of Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 265. The Clerk is further directed to serve a copy of this Opinion & Or der on pro se Plaintiff. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 6/3/24) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
LUISA CASTAGNA ESPOSITO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
WILLIE GARY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.

18-CV-11245 (PGG) (OTW)
ORDER

--------------------------------------------------------------x
ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Court assumes familiarity with the procedural posture of this case. On July 26, 2023,
I permitted pro se Plaintiff to serve seven limited document subpoenas on specific entities. (See
ECF Nos. 199, 213, and 264). 1 All other discovery was stayed. After the Court discovered that
Plaintiff had violated the discovery stay and the scope of the permitted subpoenas, I quashed
Plaintiff’s subpoenas and denied her meritless motions to compel and for sanctions. All
discovery was stayed, and Plaintiff was warned that any future noncompliance with the Court’s
discovery orders would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice.
(See ECF 264). ECF 264 was entered on December 21, 2023. Id.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which non-party
subpoenaed entity Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (“Travelers”), opposed the
next day. (See ECF Nos. 265 and 266).

Plaintiff was limited to subpoenaing the following seven entities: (1) Case Cash Funding, (2) Golden Pear Funding,
(3) Travelers Insurance Company, (4) Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, (5) Chubb Insurance, (6) Sterling National
Bank, and (7) Executive Risk Specialty Insurance.

1

1

On February 5, 2024, I issued a Report & Recommendation to Judge Gardephe (ECF
272), recommending that Defendants’ Willie E. Gary and Christopher Chestnut’s motion to
dismiss (ECF 107) be granted, and that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (ECF 92) be
dismissed in its entirety, with no further leave to amend as any future amendments would be
futile. (ECF 272 at 16–17). Plaintiff’s objections were filed on February 16, 2024 (ECF 274), and
are all pending before Judge Gardephe. No responses were filed by Defendants.
Under Local Rule 6.3, a party seeking reconsideration must identify controlling facts or
law that were overlooked in the challenged decision. Plaintiff has not met this burden. Instead,
Plaintiff claims that a grant of an extension to Travelers, to oppose Plaintiff’s motion, was a
grant of the motion itself. (See ECF 239). 2 The rest of Plaintiff’s motion argues that the absence
of documents supporting Plaintiff’s allegations “prove” that the subpoenaed parties are
withholding documents, and thus support sanctions.
Plaintiff has not met the standard of Local Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 265. The Clerk is further directed
to serve a copy of this Opinion & Order on pro se Plaintiff.

While the text of the docket entry for ECF 239 is not a model of clarity, that is not a basis for reconsideration.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(c), a litigant “should not rely on the description on the docket or in [an] ECF Notice of
Electronic filing[,]” and is held to the text of a Court order. Plaintiff has litigated this and other cases in this Court
and is expected to be familiar with the Local Rules for the Southern District of New York. The Order at ECF 239, was
clear and unequivocal.
2

2

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of
an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an
appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ona T. Wang
Ona T. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 3, 2024
New York, New York

3