United States District Court, E.D. New York
DECISION & ORDER
HON.
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge.
Michael
Walker ("Plaintiff) brings this action against the City
of New York and New York City Police Department
("NYPD") Officers Gregory Gordon and Michael Smith
(collectively, "Defendants") for damages resulting
from alleged unconstitutional policies and actions arising
out of an alleged excessive use of force incident which
occurred on February 2, 2013. Complaint, ECF No. 1.
On July
7, 2017, the date on which Magistrate Judge Kuo directed all
parties to complete discovery and certify that disclosure was
completed, Plaintiff moved to compel unresolved discovery,
including a request that Judge Kuo reconsider the Court's
prior order barring discovery related to a Confidential
Informant ("CI"). Pl.'s Motion to Compel, ECF
No. 53.
On July
27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kuo heard argument on Plaintiffs
motion by telephone conference, wherein Magistrate Judge Kuo
ruled on Plaintiffs discovery motions and granted
Defendants' request to bifurcate discovery with respect
to the Monell[1]claim pending resolution of the individual
claims. Transcript ("Tr."), ECF No. 64; see
also July 27, 2017 Minute Order ("Kuo MO").
On
August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to Judge
Kuo's July 27, 2017 rulings. Pl.'s Objections, ECF
No. 59. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a),
Plaintiff seeks the District Court's review of the
following: (1) Denial of Plaintiff s request to hold the
deposition of a CI; (2) Denial of Plaintiff s request to
compel defendant Gordon to produce his Facebook postings; (3)
Grant of Defendants' request to bifurcate and stay
discovery with respect to the Monell claim; and (4)
Denial of Plaintiff s request to compel discovery of
documents pertaining to defendant Gordon's misconduct
hearing for insubordination. Id. On September 20,
2017, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs
objections. Defs.' Response, ECF No. 66. After a careful
review of Magistrate Judge Kuo's July 27, 2017 order in
light of Plaintiff s objections, this Court finds that
Plaintiffs objections are without merit and affirms Judge
Kuo's July 27, 2017 order in its entirety.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
I.
Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Order
District
Courts are empowered to "designate a magistrate judge to
hear and decide a pretrial matter that is 'not
dispositive of a party's claim or defense.'"
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d
Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A)). If a party timely objects to the
magistrate judge's decision on the non-dispositive
matter, "[t]he district judge in the case must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Pretrial discovery motions are considered
nondispositive and are reviewed for clear error. City of
New York v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 13-CV-9173,
2017 WL 633445, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017) (Ramos, J.)
(citations omitted). "A ruling is 'clearly
erroneous' where, 'although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court... is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.'" Gruss v. Zwirn, 9-CV-644, 2013
WL 3481350, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013) (Gardephe, J.)
(quoting United States v. Chowdhury, 639 F.3d 583,
585 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Bessemer
City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518
(1985))). "An order is 'contrary to law' when it
'fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law
or rules of procedure."' Id. (citations
omitted). "This is a highly deferential standard, and
'[t]he party seeking to overturn a magistrate judge's
decision thus carries a heavy burden.'" FedEx
Ground Package Sys., 2017 WL 633445, at *3 (citations
omitted); see also Gruss, 2013 WL 3481350, at *5
("Magistrate judges are given broad latitude in
resolving discovery disputes... ." (citation omitted));
Auto. Club of New York, Inc. v. The Port Auth.
of New York & New Jersey, 1 l-CV-6746, 2015 WL
3404111, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2015) (Eaton, J.) ("A
magistrate judge's resolution of a discovery dispute
deserves substantial deference." (citation omitted)).
II.
Scope of Discovery
The
scope of discovery permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is set forth in Rule 26(b)(1):
Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court
order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the
parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Information
is relevant if: "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence;
and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the
action." Fed.R.Evid. 401. Relevance is a matter of
degree, and the standard is applied more liberally in
discovery than it is at trial. See Refco Grp. Ltd. v.
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., 13-CV-1654, 2014 WL 5420225, at
*7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) (Pitman, M.J.) ("It is well
established that relevance for the purpose of discovery is
broader in scope than relevance for the purpose of the trial
itself." (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted)). On the other hand, proportionality focuses on the
"marginal utility of the discovery sought" and
requires a balancing of the multiple factors set forth in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp.,
1 l-CV-5088, 2016 WL 616386, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016)
(Pitman, M.J.). "Proportionality and relevance are
'conjoined' concepts; the greater the relevance of
the information in issue, the less likely its discovery will
be found to be disproportionate." Id. (citation
omitted).
DISCUSSION
I.
Denial of Plaintiffs Request to Conduct ...