Chinn v. The Elmwood Franklin School et al

Filing 128

DECISION AND ORDER: The pro se Plaintiff's 108 objections to Judge Schroeder's May 30, 2018 Order and her 125 objections to Judge McCarthy's June 21, 2018 Order are DENIED. A copy of this Decision and Order and the NEF have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/12/2018. (SFR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHELLONNEE B. CHINN,
Plaintiff,
Case # 15-CV-938-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
THE ELMWOOD FRANKLIN SCHOOL, et al.,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Shellonnee B. Chinn brings this case against the Elmwood Franklin School
and many of its employees and trustees. ECF No. 1. She alleges that Defendants subjected her to
age, gender, and racial discrimination and retaliation during her employment as a teacher. Id. The
Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for pretrial
matters. ECF No. 72.
On May 30, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.1 issued an
Order granting non-party Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center’s motion to quash. ECF
No. 101. On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to that Order. ECF No. 108.
On June 21, 2018, Judge McCarthy issued an Order granting the Elmwood Franklin
School’s motion to compel Plaintiff to produce discovery responses and initial disclosures and for
attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion. ECF No. 116. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed
objections to that Order. ECF No. 125.
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and circumstances relevant to both
Orders. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s objections are DENIED.

1

On May 17, 2018, Judge McCarthy recused himself from Roswell Park’s motion to quash, and the motion was
referred to Judge Schroeder. ECF Nos. 96, 97.

DISCUSSION
A “party seeking to reverse a Magistrate Judge’s ruling concerning discovery bears a heavy
burden, in part, because the Magistrate Judge is afforded broad discretion in these matters.” Am.
Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk S. Corp., 371 F. Supp. 2d 358, 360 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation
omitted). To reverse a Magistrate Judge’s order on a non-dispositive motion—like the motions to
quash and to compel at issue here—it must be shown that the order is “clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
An order is “clearly erroneous” only when the Court, after reviewing “the entire evidence,”
“is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Toole v. Toshin
Co., No. 00-CV-821S, 2004 WL 1737207, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2004) (citation omitted). An
order is “contrary to law” when “it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules
of procedure.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration with respect to either Judge
Schroeder’s May 30, 2018 Order or Judge McCarthy’s June 21, 2018 Order.
As to Judge Schroeder’s Order, Plaintiff asserts, in conclusory fashion without justification
or supporting case law, that Judge Schroeder improperly assessed the evidence and the relevancy
of her discovery demands. She further asserts, again without support, that obtaining discovery
from non-party Roswell Park is relevant to her case against the Elmwood Franklin School and its
employees and trustees because both are public benefit corporations and Defendant Michael
Joseph is a board member of both institutions. She also argues that the discovery she seeks—i.e.,
many years of Roswell Park meeting minutes and employee discrimination complaints—would
not expose confidential information or impose a significant burden on Roswell Park.

2

Plaintiff falls far short of demonstrating that Judge Schroeder’s Order is clearly erroneous
or that he failed to apply, or misapplied, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules. Moreover,
Plaintiff’s objections merely reiterate arguments that Judge Schroeder already considered. See,
e.g., Crawford v. Wegner, No. 6:13-CV-06638 (MAT), 2018 WL 3093333, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. June
22, 2018) (“Plaintiff’s objections, which consist of nothing more than reiterations of the arguments
considered by [the Magistrate Judge], do not demonstrate that the [order] is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.”).
As to Judge McCarthy’s Order, Plaintiff asserts that, even though “[she], admittedly, had
not timely complied with the required . . . deadline for Initial Disclosures or within 30 days for
production of documents as mandated by Rules 26 & 34,” her non-compliance with the Elmwood
Franklin School’s discovery demands does not “warrant the extreme measures handed down in
Judge McCarthy’s June 21, 2018 Order.” ECF No. 125 at 3-4. The remainder of Plaintiff’s
objections are similarly conclusory and unsupported and reiterate arguments that Judge McCarthy
already considered.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Judge McCarthy’s Order is clearly

erroneous or that he failed to apply, or misapplied, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Schroeder’s May 30, 2018 Order (ECF No. 108) and her
objections to Judge McCarthy’s June 21, 2018 Order (ECF No. 125) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court 

3