Woodward v. Afify et al

Filing 104

ORDER: For the reasons in the attached Order, plaintiff's 103 Motion for Leave to Appeal is denied. A copy of the Order has been mailed to Shawn Woodward, 00-A-6563, LIVINGSTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Box 91, Sonyea, NY 14556. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 7/13/17. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
SHAWN WOODWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

14-CV-856-RJA-MJR
ORDER

AFIFY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________
On April 25, 2017, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer’s
Decision and Order, which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions to
compel discovery and for subpoenas duces tecum. See Docket No. 96. Plaintiff has
since filed a motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal from the Court’s
April 25th Decision and Order. See Docket No. 103. The Court construes Plaintiff’s
motion as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 1292(b) states that,
“[w]hen a district judge . . . shall be of the opinion that [an interlocutory order] involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing.” The court of appeals
may, then, “in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order.” Id.
Plaintiff has not shown, nor is it apparent, how either of § 1292(b)’s requirements
is satisfied in this case. Indeed, because “discovery orders are generally collateral in
nature, they will rarely satisfy these requirements.” In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98
(2d Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied.

1

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2017
Buffalo, New York

_s/Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2