Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 88 LETTER MOTION for Discovery addressed to Judge Kenneth M. Karas from Mary A. Smith dated February 20, 2020. filed by Theodore Harris, Bob Miniger, Gideon Oenga, Travis Larsen, John Kuehner, Michael Sestrick, Renee McComb, Balchem Corporation. Plaintiffs request that the Court overrule Magistrate Judge Davison's Order is DENIED. Separately, Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgement which the court construes as a req uest for permission to file a motion for summary judgement. (See Docs. 8990, 10405). Plaintiffs request for permission to move for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. At the appropriate time, and once discovery is completed, motions for summary judgement may be considered. If either party intends to move for summary judgment at that point, the movant must comply with my Individual Practices. The case management conference scheduled for June 16, 2020 is adjourned sine die. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Doc. 88. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 5/11/2020) (ks)

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 108 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
RICKY KAMDEN-OUAFFO,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
BALCHEM CORP., et al,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:

17-CV-2810 (PMH)

On January 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison issued an Order addressing
Defendants’ objections to certain discovery demands promulgated by Plaintiff. (Doc. 82,
the “Order”). Magistrate Judge Davison found that: (1) the 737 requests for admissions that
Plaintiff served on Defendants were not proportional to the needs of the case and granted
Defendants a protective order; (2) four deposition notices served on senior executives of
Balchem Corporation could proceed via written questions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31;
and (3) Plaintiff’s request to administer “deposition quizzes” was improper and would not
be permitted. Id. On February 7, 2020, Defendants requested a discovery conference to
address Plaintiff’s stated intention of non-compliance with the Order. 1 (Doc. 83). On
February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge Davison’s discovery
ruling pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and requested that the Civil Case Management Plan,
(see Doc. 69), be reinstated and/or modified. (Doc. 84). Defendants’ oppose Plaintiff’s
objections. (Doc. 88).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court upholds and affirms Magistrate Judge
Davison’s Order.

1

Annexed thereto was a letter that Plaintiff sent Defendants indicating he would not comply with the
Order. (Doc. 83-3). Plaintiff later filed a letter with the Court indicating same.

1

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 108 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 3

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge Davison’s decision on the parties’ discovery dispute was nondispositive. See U2 Home Entm't, Inc. v. Hong Wei Int'l Trading Inc., No. 04-CV-6189,
2007 WL 2327068, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2007) (“Discovery matters are generally
considered non-dispositive of litigation.”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 permits a party to file
objections to a non-dispositive decision of a magistrate judge “within 14 days of being
served with a copy [of the magistrate judge’s written order].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The
district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part
of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. “An order is clearly
erroneous only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Rivera v. Hudson Valley Hosp. Grp.,
Inc., No. 17-CV-5636, 2019 WL 3955539, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2019) (quoting
Khaldei v. Kaspiev, 961 F. Supp. 2d 572, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). A decision is “contrary to
law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Id.
(quoting Khaldei, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 575). A magistrate judge’s “rulings on discovery
matters are entitled to substantial deference,” and, therefore, “[t]he party seeking to
overturn a magistrate judge's decision . . . carries a heavy burden.” U2 Home Entm’t, Inc.,
2007 WL 2327068, at *1.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Davison’s Order and argues that the Order
violates the Case Management Plan and that Magistrate Judge Davison erred at the January
29, 2020 discovery hearing. (Doc. 84 at 2). The Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s
arguments.

2

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 108 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 3

It is clear from the Order that Magistrate Judge Davison gave proper consideration
to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff points to no case law,
and the Court is aware of none, which indicate that Magistrate Judge Davison’s decision is
“clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Indeed, each of Magistrate Judge Davison’s
findings is firmly supported by case law from courts within this Circuit. Plaintiff has failed
to meet the stringent review standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court
affirms and upholds Magistrate Judge Davison’s Order.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request that the Court overrule Magistrate Judge Davison’s Order is
DENIED.
Separately, Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgement which the court
construes as a request for permission to file a motion for summary judgement. (See Docs.
89–90, 104–05). Plaintiff’s request for permission to move for summary judgment is
denied without prejudice. At the appropriate time, and once discovery is completed,
motions for summary judgement may be considered. If either party intends to move for
summary judgment at that point, the movant must comply with my Individual Practices.
The case management conference scheduled for June 16, 2020 is adjourned sine
die.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate Doc. 88.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: New York, New York
May 11, 2020
________________________
Philip M. Halpern
United States District Judge

3