Liriano et al v. New York City Department of Education et al

Filing 163

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Catania's objections to the July 6, 2021, Order at Docket No. 159 are OVERRULED. The July 6, 2021, Order -- denying Catania's request without prejudice -- is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. At t he time of the July 6, 2021, Order, the parties' July 22, 2021, deadline to meet and confer regarding an ESI Protocol had not yet expired and Catania's request was premature. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/16/2021) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
MERCEDES LIRIANO, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
:
EDUCATION, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

19 Civ. 11245 (LGS)(SLC)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave directed the parties to meet
and confer and submit an ESI Protocol (or competing proposals, in the event they cannot agree
after meaningful, good-faith efforts), by July 22, 2021. Dkt. No. 155.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2021, Defendant Patricia Catania filed a letter requesting that the
Court adopt her ESI proposal “as is, without any changes, and without considering Plaintiffs’
competing version, if any.” Dkt. No. 157.
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, Judge Cave issued an Order denying Catania’s request
without prejudice and stating
Under the Court’s, July 1, 2021 Order (ECF No. 155), the parties shall meet and
confer concerning their disputes and shall submit the ESI Proposal (or competing
proposals, in the event they cannot agree) by July 22, 2021. This deadline remains
operative, and if the parties cannot agree on an ESI Proposal, the Court will
consider each of the parties’ positions, in due course.
Dkt. No. 159.
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2021, Catania timely filed objections to Judge Cave’s July 6,
2021, Order on the grounds that Defendants refused to meet and confer “unless it was for a
limited, unilateral ESI protocol, meaning one addressed to Catania’s electronic devices only.”
Dkt. No. 161.

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.”
Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155, 167 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or
misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Genovese,
No. 18 Civ. 942, 2021 WL 2986413, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2021) (citation omitted). “It is
well-settled that a magistrate judge’s resolution of a nondispositve matter should be afforded
substantial deference and may be overturned only if found to have been an abuse of discretion.”
Kaufman v. Salesforce.Com, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 6879, 2021 WL 2269552, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3,
2021).
WHEREAS, an order regarding an ESI protocol is nondispositive. See Verint Sys. Inc. v.
Red Box Recorders Ltd., 183 F. Supp. 3d 467, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (treating a dispute related to
the ESI protocol as nondispositive and affording deference to the magistrate judge’s ruling). It is
hereby
ORDERED that Catania’s objections to the July 6, 2021, Order at Docket No. 159 are
OVERRULED. The July 6, 2021, Order -- denying Catania’s request without prejudice -- is not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. At the time of the July 6, 2021, Order, the parties’ July 22,
2021, deadline to meet and confer regarding an ESI Protocol had not yet expired and Catania’s
request was premature.
Dated: July 16, 2021
New York, New York
2