Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-04476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Local 3621 v. City of New York: Judge Liman adopted a recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.
The plaintiffs’ sanctions request was partly denied and partly granted. The plaintiffs were awarded reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the specified motions, but they did not receive the requested adverse inference.
What happened
In Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., the plaintiffs asked for sanctions, including an inference against the opposing party based on the record.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the request for that inference but awarding the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for four motions. The parties did not object to the recommendation.
Judge Lewis J. Liman found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. The court denied the adverse-inference request and granted reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; it also directed the clerk to close one docket entry.
The detailed version
- Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04476
- Lewis Liman
- July 7, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions, including an adverse inference. An adverse inference allows a court to treat missing or unfavorable evidence as supporting the opposing party’s position. The opinion states that the motion concerned Dkt. Nos. 192, 267, 360, and 328.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
On March 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. Specifically, she recommended denying the request for an adverse inference but granting sanctions in the form of reimbursement to plaintiffs for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the four identified motions. The parties were given 14 days to object, but no objections were filed.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Without objections, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found none and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions: it denied the adverse-inference request and granted reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as recommended. Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close Dkt. No. 328.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.