Nowlin v. 2 jane doe female et al
Filing
206
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Defendants' Objections to Judge Scott's October 16, 2014 193 195 Order. Signed by William M. Skretny, Senior United States District Judge on 6/2/2015. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
QUINTIN A. NOWLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
11-CV-712S
KELLEY LUSK et al.,
Defendants.
1.
Presently before this Court are the objections of the Monroe County
Defendants and the City of Rochester Defendants from the October 16, 2014 order of
Magistrate Judge Scott awarding Plaintiff $3,663.00 in motion expenses pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C). Where, as here, all non-dispositive pretrial
matters in a case have been referred to a magistrate judge for hearing and disposition,
the magistrate judge’s order on such a pretrial matter will be reconsidered by the district
judge only when it has been established that it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900
F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990), cert denied, 498 U.S. 846 (1990).
This is a highly
deferential standard that affords broad discretion to magistrate judges in resolving
discovery disputes. See Koumoulis v. Independent Fin. Mktg. Group, 29 F. Supp. 3d
142, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). As such, this Court will set aside or modify Judge Scott’s
order in this case only if it finds that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law,
2.
The Rochester City Defendants, having failed to oppose the motion before
Judge Scott, now raise their substantive arguments for the first time on this appeal.
1
Generally, however, district courts will not consider arguments not raised before the
magistrate judge, as to do so would undermine the authority of the magistrate judge and
the purpose of the referral. See Smith v. County of Nassau, No. 10-CV-4874 (MKB),
2015 WL 1507767, *9 n.12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015); Storms v. United States, No. 13CV-0811 (MKB), 2014 WL 3547016, *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 16, 2014).
Defendants’
excusable neglect argument is more appropriately raised in a motion for reconsideration
before Judge Scott. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(2).
3.
Similarly, the Monroe County Defendants’ argument that an award of fees
is improper where Plaintiff failed to confer with counsel regarding the discovery demand
is untimely raised for the first time in the reply papers on this appeal. Storms, 2014 WL
3547016 at *4. In any event, the prior finding by the Magistrate Judge regarding the
failure to confer, on which these Defendants rely (see Rulison Decl ¶ 5), relates to an
earlier discovery motion filed by the Plaintiff pro se prior to obtaining counsel, not the
motion underlying the present fee award. (see Docket Nos. 131, 179, 185.)
4.
With respect to those issues that are timely raised here, “[a] court abuses
its discretion when its decision rests on an error of law or on a clearly erroneous factual
finding.” Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2010). “[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.” CFTC v. Standard Forex, 882 F. Supp. 40, 42 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Having
reviewed that Magistrate Judge’s analysis, this Court finds no clear error with Judge
Scott’s conclusions regarding either the amount of or the apportionment of the
attorney’s fees award.
2
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ objections from Judge Scott’s
October 16, 2014 Order [193, 195] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2015
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Senior United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?