Wedil David v. The Weinstein Company LLC

Background

Wedil David brought claims against Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company LLC, and The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC related to two alleged incidents of sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein. The opinion addressed only Harvey Weinstein’s objections to two discovery-related orders issued by Magistrate Judge Fox.

David served Weinstein with interrogatories and document requests on December 23, 2019. Weinstein did not respond within the required period. After a February 4, 2020 status conference at which Weinstein’s counsel did not appear, Judge Fox issued an order on February 12 directing Weinstein to respond by February 20 without asserting objections. Judge Fox concluded that Weinstein had waived objections because he failed to respond to the discovery requests on time. Judge Fox also denied Weinstein’s request to stay discovery.

Weinstein later served responses to the document requests without objections and received extensions concerning the interrogatories. After obtaining new counsel, he sought reconsideration or clarification of the February order. Judge Fox orally denied that request during a May 8 conference. Weinstein then filed objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to both orders.

Legal standard

Rule 72(a) permits a party to object to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, such as discovery. The district court must modify or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An order is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake. An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant law or procedural rules. The district court gives substantial deference to a magistrate judge’s decision under this standard.

February order

Judge Abrams first held that Weinstein’s objections to the February order were untimely. Rule 72(a) required objections within 14 days, but Weinstein filed his objections almost three months after the deadline. The court declined to review the February order despite the delay and stated that the objections could be overruled on that basis alone.

Judge Abrams also considered whether the objections would fail even if they had been timely. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 generally require responses to interrogatories and document requests within 30 days. The court explained that failing to respond or object within the required period may waive discovery objections. It rejected Weinstein’s argument that only an especially serious failure could cause waiver and concluded that he had not shown that Judge Fox’s February order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore overruled Weinstein’s objections to that order.

May order

Weinstein also objected to Judge Fox’s denial of his request to reconsider or clarify the February order. Judge Abrams noted that it was uncertain whether seeking reconsideration from the magistrate judge was procedurally proper instead of directly objecting to the order under Rule 72(a). In any event, the court held that the request was untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the original determination. Judge Abrams therefore concluded that the objections to the May order were also properly overruled.

Disposition

Judge Abrams affirmed Judge Fox’s February 12 and May 8 orders and overruled Harvey Weinstein’s Rule 72(a) objections. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims related to the alleged sexual assaults.