Lastra v. City Of New York

Background

James Lastra objected to discovery rulings in Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s July 1, 2020 order. The order directed the defendants to follow a procedure for producing relevant portions of the Patrol Guide, denied Lastra’s request to take photographs of Precinct 8, required Lastra to produce four categories of documents, and set discovery deadlines.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that discovery rulings receive substantial deference.

Rulings on the Objections

The court overruled any objections to the requirements in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 because Lastra had not identified specific objections to those rulings. Those requirements concerned messages or recordings related to his claims, evidence concerning damages or lost income, and a release for records from his neurologist, Dr. Fleming.

Paragraph 6 required Lastra to provide a fully signed release for records concerning the arrest at issue and a list of any prior arrests. Lastra argued that his former counsel had already provided the release in 2017 and supplied a copy with notations limiting its use. The defendants said the release was not in their file and argued that the issue was moot. The court concluded that Lastra should provide a clean copy of the release and overruled the objection. It directed him to provide the clean copy within 14 days.

The court upheld the denial of Lastra’s request to photograph Precinct 8. It found that the magistrate judge acted within his discretion by weighing the photographs’ relevance against the disruption involved, particularly during a pandemic.

The court also upheld the procedure for producing relevant portions of the Patrol Guide that were in effect in 2014, the year of Lastra’s arrest. The court stated that any complaint that the procedure had not been followed could be raised with the magistrate judge, but that such a complaint was not a basis to overturn the procedure.

The court overruled Lastra’s objections to the discovery schedule as moot. Discovery had been stalled by the objections, so the magistrate judge would need to reset the schedule; however, the court found that the schedule was reasonable when entered on July 1, 2020.

Disposition

The court stated that Lastra’s additional complaints about defense counsel, including complaints concerning the identification of other police officers, did not identify specific magistrate judge rulings or show that those rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court concluded that arguments not addressed specifically were moot or without merit. Judge John G. Koeltl overruled Lastra’s objections to the July 1, 2020 order and directed the Clerk to close the docket entries relating to those objections.