Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department et al, No. 1:2021cv05731 - Document 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has carefully reviewed the Order, the plaintiff's objections, and the defendants' response to the plaintiff's objections. The plaintiff has failed to show that the Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objections to the Order are overruled. To the extent that the plaintiff has further concerns with discovery in this case, the plaintiff should bring those concerns to the attention of Magistrate Judge Moses in the first instance. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 6/10/2022) (ks)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department et al Doc. 62 Case 1:21-cv-05731-JGK-BCM Document 62 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAUL SABINO, 21-cv-5731 (JGK) Plaintiff, - against - MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PORT AUTHORITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Moses's order dated April 1, 2022 regarding discovery and scheduling (the "Order," ECF No. 49). A magistrate judge's discovery orders are generally considered "nondispositive" of the litigation. See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990). Accordingly, a district court must affirm such orders unless they are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "A magistrate's ruling is contrary to law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure, and is clearly erroneous if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Thai Lao Lignite (Thai.) Co. v. Gov't of Lao People's Dem. Rep., 924 F. Supp. 2d 508, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). This standard of review is "highly deferential," see id. at 511, and "magistrates are afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes." Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-05731-JGK-BCM Document 62 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 2 MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgs. Tr. 2006-OA2 v. UBS Real Estate Secs. Inc., No. 12-cv-7322, 2013 WL 6840282, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2013). The Court has carefully reviewed the Order, the plaintiff's objections, and the defendants' response to the plaintiff's objections. The plaintiff has failed to show that the Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objections to the Order are overruled. To the extent that the plaintiff has further concerns with discovery in this case, the plaintiff should bring those concerns to the attention of Magistrate Judge Moses in the first instance. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 10, 2022 ( -- .,_/John G. Keel t1 \Q!}.~ted States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
