Dass v. The City University of New York

Background

Krishna Dass objected to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s order denying her leave to amend her First Amended Complaint and denying her request to depose Ester Rodriguez-Chardavoyne, Marquee Poole, and either Ann Paguay or Diania Kreymer. The district court reviewed the objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a district judge to change a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Timeliness

Judge Wang ruled orally on September 13, 2022. Dass filed her objections on September 29, 2022, sixteen days later, although Rule 72(a) generally allows 14 days. The court held that the oral ruling started the objection period and that Dass therefore waived further review. However, the court explained that this waiver rule is not jurisdictional and may be excused in the interests of justice. It excused the waiver as to the request to amend because that objection had substantial merit. It held that the objections concerning the additional depositions were meritless and waived, but nevertheless considered them and upheld Judge Wang’s ruling.

Leave to Amend

The court held that Rule 15(a)(2), rather than the more demanding good-cause standard under Rule 16(b), governed Dass’s request. The case-management order did not establish a deadline for amending the pleadings and expressly contemplated amendments under Rule 15. Under Rule 15, leave to amend should generally be freely given unless factors such as futility, bad faith, undue prejudice, or undue delay support denial.

The court found the proposed Title VII retaliation claim futile. Dass’s security reports described conduct as inappropriate, condescending, aggressive, or creating a hostile environment, but did not give defendants notice that she was complaining about sex-based discrimination. The court therefore overruled Dass’s objection as to the proposed Third Cause of Action.

The court rejected defendants’ futility arguments concerning the proposed Equal Pay Act claim. Dass alleged sufficient similarities between her position and those of male athletic directors, including comparable responsibility for athletic programs, budgets, and facilities. The court also found that the proposed allegations adequately supported sex-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. In particular, the proposed complaint alleged that Sohn, at President Gomez’s direction or with Gomez’s knowledge, initiated a sham investigation against Dass and that her sex was a motivating factor.

The court also found no established bad faith, undue prejudice, or undue delay sufficient to deny amendment. It concluded that defendants had not shown specifically what additional discovery or other burden the amendment would cause, and that delay alone was not enough to deny leave. The court sustained Dass’s objections as to the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action and overruled them as to the Third Cause of Action. Dass’s motion for leave to amend was therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Additional Depositions

Dass sought permission to exceed the presumptive limit of ten depositions per side and depose Rodriguez-Chardavoyne, Poole, and either Paguay or Kreymer. The court stated that magistrate judges have broad discretion over discovery disputes and that reversal requires clear error or an abuse of discretion. After reviewing Dass’s arguments, the court found no error, let alone clear error, in Judge Wang’s conclusion that the requested depositions were unwarranted under Rule 30. Dass’s objections to that discovery ruling were OVERRULED.

Disposition

The court stated that Dass’s objections were SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. It directed Dass to file her Second Amended Complaint by December 19, 2024, and directed defendants to respond within 21 days after filing.