Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Background

Heena Shim-Larkin was a seasonal lifeguard with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation at the Tompkins Square Mini Pool for about eight weeks in summer 2015. She alleged that coworkers and a supervisor discriminated against her based on national origin, race, disability, and her status as a domestic-violence victim. She alleged that she was forced to resign before the end of her seasonal term, although the Department employed her again the following summer.

The opinion concerned objections to discovery and sanctions rulings by Magistrate Judge Fox. It did not decide the merits of Shim-Larkin’s discrimination allegations.

Standard of Review

Because the challenged rulings were non-dispositive pretrial matters, including discovery decisions, the court could modify or set them aside only if they were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when the district court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant law or procedural rules.

Shim-Larkin’s Discovery Objections

The court denied Shim-Larkin’s objections to Magistrate Judge Fox’s August 16, 2019 rulings. Those rulings concerned the deposition of Martin Kravitz, a Parks Department employee; alleged interruptions and coaching by City counsel; Shim-Larkin’s request for an instruction allowing the jury to draw an unfavorable conclusion from the evidence; and related deposition relief. The court found no clear error, concluding that the record did not show that City attorneys improperly coached Kravitz and that Shim-Larkin could have pursued additional questioning during the deposition.

The court also denied Shim-Larkin’s objections to the magistrate judge’s November 27, 2019 rulings. Those rulings concerned additional records about the City’s 311 complaint process, an instruction based on alleged destruction of evidence, further discovery, and possible sanctions. The court held that the City had complied with the prior order by providing declarations from three employees explaining how 311 complaints were received, processed, and retained. It also agreed that Shim-Larkin had not shown that the disputed form ever existed, that the City had a duty to preserve it, or that further discovery was warranted.

The court denied Shim-Larkin’s objections to the January 7, 2020 expense award. The magistrate judge had awarded $114.90 in costs and later awarded an additional $35.10 after correcting a calculation error. The court upheld the decisions denying reimbursement for certain travel, internet use, laptop use, and telephone expenses because Shim-Larkin had not adequately shown that those expenses were caused by her sanctions motion or had been sufficiently documented.

Sanctions Against the City and Scott Silverman

The court granted the City’s objections to Magistrate Judge Fox’s February 5, 2019 sanctions order. That order had sanctioned the City and former City attorney Scott Silverman for the response to Shim-Larkin’s interrogatories seeking information about “PAA Demuth’s supervisor.” It required payment of $1,000 and reasonable expenses, reopened discovery so Shim-Larkin could depose Lieutenant Bekim Kalicovic, and required the City to produce documents before that deposition.

The court held that Silverman had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard before sanctions were imposed. The court also concluded that the record showed Silverman had taken reasonable steps to identify the person described in the interrogatories, and that the City’s conduct did not warrant the sanction. The court therefore granted the City’s objections and vacated the February 5 order to the extent it conflicted with the opinion, including the related reopening of discovery.

Sanctions Against Dominique F. Saint-Fort

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s objections to Magistrate Judge Fox’s September 16, 2019 sanctions decision concerning attorney Dominique F. Saint-Fort. The magistrate judge had found that Saint-Fort repeated a factual representation about when Shim-Larkin identified the possible rank of the supervisor sought in discovery, even though the court had rejected that representation. The magistrate judge ordered Saint-Fort to pay $500 to the Clerk of Court, reprimanded her, required her to distribute the decision to specified attorneys in the New York City Law Department, and required a compliance affidavit.

The court affirmed the $500 payment and the formal reprimand, finding no clear error in those sanctions. It reversed the requirement that Saint-Fort distribute the decision to other attorneys, concluding that the requirement was broader than necessary to deter similar conduct and could cause significant reputational harm. The opinion states that the court denied the City’s remaining objections and affirmed the remainder of the magistrate judge’s decision.

Disposition

The court denied Shim-Larkin’s objections at Docket Nos. 536, 586, and 594. It granted the City’s objections at Docket No. 476. It granted in part and denied in part the City’s objections at Docket No. 557, as stated in the conclusion. The body of the opinion identifies the sanctions decision under review as Docket No. 540.