Bulgari v. Bulgari

Background

On March 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted in part and denied in part Veronica Bulgari’s motion to compel documents concerning the Ilaria Trust. The order required Ilaria Bulgari to produce account statements, remove redactions from outgoing transactions greater than $10,000, and identify the owner of any account receiving those transfers.

Ilaria later asked Judge Lehrburger to reconsider that ruling, relying on a March 24, 2025, decision by the Surrogate’s Court. That state-court decision found that the same Glenmede account statements were not relevant to claims in a different action brought by Veronica. On April 21, 2025, Judge Lehrburger denied reconsideration because the request was untimely and lacked merit.

Objections and arguments

Ilaria and Counterclaim-Defendant Jan Boyer objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), asking the district court to set aside the April 21 order and prevent production of the unredacted statements. They argued that the Surrogate’s Court decision was newly available evidence, that the reconsideration request should be treated as timely, and that the district court should conduct a similar private review of the records.

Veronica argued that the objections improperly sought review of the earlier discovery order rather than the order denying reconsideration. She also argued that the reconsideration request was late under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and that the Surrogate’s Court findings did not control this case.

Court’s analysis

For objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, Rule 72(a) permits a district court to change or set aside the ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake occurred. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules. Magistrate judges’ decisions on non-dispositive matters receive substantial deference.

Judge Schofield concluded that the timeliness ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires a reconsideration motion within 14 days of the challenged order. The March 21 order was followed by Ilaria’s April 7 motion, filed 17 days later. Although the Surrogate’s Court issued its decision on March 24, Ilaria still had 11 days to file a timely motion or request an extension and did neither. The court also found that Judge Lehrburger acted within his discretion in declining to excuse the delay.

The court separately upheld the finding that reconsideration would fail on the merits even if the motion had been timely. The objections identified no controlling authority or overlooked evidence that could reasonably change the earlier decision. The record supported finding the unredacted transaction information relevant to Veronica’s counterclaims, which alleged that Ilaria, aided by Boyer, breached fiduciary duties by making unauthorized distributions from the Ilaria Trust. The March discovery order limited production to transactions above $10,000, balancing privacy and burden concerns against the need for discovery.

The Surrogate’s Court decision did not change that conclusion because it concerned a limited removal petition involving co-trustee Jonathan Leo, who is not a party to this case. The court stated that the state-court factual findings were not binding on, and did not preclude, the relevance determination in this proceeding.

Disposition

Judge Schofield ORDERED that Ilaria and Boyer’s objections to Judge Lehrburger’s April 21, 2025, order were OVERRULED. The request for in-camera review—private judicial examination of the records—was DENIED.