Kalola v. IBM Corporation et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:Plaintiff's objection to Judge Smith's order denying his request to serve additional document requests is OVERRULED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/10/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rj)

USDS SDNY
DOCUMI NT
ELECTRONU LLY FILED
NI FED S’i A FES DIS FRIC’i COUR F
SOF111LR\D1SIRICI OiM\\ YORK

DOC#

/V”
2
DAlE_F’iLhL:

P[RFS1 101 PAM C. KALOLA,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANDORDER
13 C\ 7339 (VB) (L\IS)

INFERNAFTONAL BUSINESS MAChINES
CORPORAl ION. ROBFR F MURPHY. and
\‘I\CINI GRAN[tZO.
Defendants.

:

x
Before the Court is the objection ofp se plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Ci P. 72(a). to
.

Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith’s December 22, 2015. order disal1oing plaintiff from
serving additional requests for production of documents.
For the following reasons, plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED.
Familiarit) with the underlying facts and record of prior proceedings. which the Court
references only as necessary to explain its decision, is assumed.
BACKGROUNJ)
On October 15. 2013, plaintiff brought claims for discrimination, retaliation, and failure
to accommodate against his previous employer and several of its current or former employees.
On August 14. 2015, the Court referred the action to Judge Smith for general pre-trial
super ision. including discovery. (Doe. 83).
At a status conference on September 14. 2015. Judge Smith revieed plaintiffs

er

1euesb

ar:d the

rCspOIise

deiendant had er .d as of that date Judge cmith ordeted

plaintiff to rexise his initial list of document demands by September 25. 2015. and for defendants
to respond b October 16. 2015.

On September 21,2015, plaintiff served a revised request for the production of

documents. (Doc. #98). At a status conference on November 5, 2015, Judge Smith reviewed
plaintiffs revised requests and the responses defendants served as of that date. Judge Smith

ordered plaintiff to limit his document requests to (i) no more than 15 demands for documents,
and (ii) documents from January 1, 2007, to the present.
On November 16,2015, plaintiff served a second revised request for production of
documents. (Doc. #112). The request included 17 categories of requests, many with subpart
requests. Defendants produced additional responsive documents on December 18. 2015. On
December 20,2015, plaintiff filed an updated request 11w production of documents. (Doe. #118).
This updated version included 24 categories of requests. On December 21,2015. plaintiff filed
another updated request for production of documents. (Doe. #119). This updated version
included 37 categories of requests.
As of that date, defendants had served five separate sets of discovery responses and
produced 1,519 pages of documents to plaintiff. (l)oc. #137).
At a status conference on December 22, 2015, Judge Smith noted plaintiff’s requests
were overbroad, irrelevant, or duplicative with the documents defendants already produced.
Judge Smith explained “[t]here’s no reason for me to allow you to request further documents. I
gave you the opportunity. I went through it with you. You agreed to produce 15 document

demands, limited in time and in scope. I don’t see any reason why the defendants should be put
to more work

Cr. at 6).!

Plaintiffobjected to defendants’ responses to his document requests, and asserted he
required additional documents. After Judge Smith explained the requests must be specific and
Defendants submitted the transcript of the December 22. 2015, status conference to the
Court but did not file it on ECF because it contains sensitive and confidential infonnation.
I

2

relevant, plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to clarify how additional documents may relate to
his claim. Plaintiff was unable to do so. Accordingly. Judge Smith precluded plaintiff from
servin additional discover requests:
We’re done with document demands. We’re done. We’re done with
document demands. Let me say it again. We’re done with
document demands. I’ve given you many. many chances to be clear
and specific. You’ve given them these very vague and run—on
document demands that are unintelligible. And I can’t make them
respond any more than they already have.
(Yr. at 22). Plaintiff submitted a letter to this Court objecting to Judge Smith’s order.
(Doe. #121).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends Judge Smith erred when she disallowed plaintiff from serving
additional document requests on defendants.
The Court disagrees.
A district judge must set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive if the
ruling “is clearly

erroneous or is contrar

to

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a): accord 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(A); Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3,604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010). Discovery
disputes are generally considered non-dispositive since they do not resolve substantive claims for
relief. Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 846 (1990).
The “dearly erroneous or contrary to law”

test “is a

highly deferential standard, and the

objector thus carries a heav\ burden.” Khaldeiv._Kapje. 961 F. Supp. 2d 572. 575 SD.’\.\.

201 3). Pursuant to this deferential standard. “magistrate judges are afforded broad

discretion to

resolve discovery disputes and reversal is appropriate only if the discretion is abused.”

Lyondelj?ijgojef.. LP v. ?cIroie4)$4ç Veneeuela, S.A.. 2005 WI. 551092. at I (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 9. 2005) (citation omitted)?
Plaintiff makes several arguments in his letter objecting to Judge Smith’s discoi cry
order. First, plaintiff argues Judge Smith’s “decision is wrong and it ‘dll confuse the blur, and

Li Judges during the trials.” (Doc. d121 at 8). Second. plaintiff argues “[ijt will hurt the
[pjlaintiff to tell the lilme [sJtory of his (d]iscrimination. (j.). Third. plaintiff argues “that this

Idlocument [rJequest will take only 4 Ihiours.” Iffi. at 10).
Haiing rciewed the parties’ arguments and applicable law, the Court finds nothing in
3
Judge Smith’s order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In balancing plaintiff’s need

for discover> with the burden his requests would place on defendants, Judge Smith acted within
her discretion under Rule 26(b) to regulate the scope of discovery.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bxl),

(2XC).
The Court notes Judge Smith handled this matter with extraordinary patience, and bent
over backwards to afford plaintiff several opportunities to revise his request for documents to
comply with her orders. Plaintiff continually failed to do so. Plaintiff is warned that additional
failures to comply with court orders may result in sanctions. As Judge Smith has explained to
plaintiff, sanctions may include preclusion of evidence, monetary sanctions, or dismissal of his
case. Compliance with discovery orders ‘is necessary to the integrity of our judicial process. A
party who flouts such orders does so at his peril.” 1,plate Art Inc. > Modiin Pub.. Ltd.. 843
I 2dM 73(2dCir 1988)
I

Plaintifl’will be proided with copies of all unpublished opinions cited in this decision.
çç T..ebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76,79 (2d Cir. 2009).
I

Moreo’ier. plaintiff failed to explain how the discovery he sought would bear on the
fundamental issue of whether he was terminated in a discsiminator> fashion Plaintifrs proposed
requests were once again ague oierbroad. or unintelligible (See Doc #121)
4

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Smith’s order denying his request to serve additional
document requests is OVERRULED.
Dated: February 10, 2016
White Plains, NY
SO ORDERED:

Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge

5