Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Schofield denied Rubin’s objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery stay.
The plaintiff and the defendant in Rubin v. New York City Board of Education; discovery remained stayed under the magistrate judge’s order.
What happened
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, the plaintiff asked the court to cancel an order pausing discovery. A magistrate judge had granted the defendant’s request for the pause and rescheduled the initial case-management conference.
The district court treated the plaintiff’s request as an objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling. It reviewed the ruling under the standard for nondispositive matters, which allows changes only when the ruling is clearly mistaken or violates the law.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ruled that the discovery stay was not clearly mistaken, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. The court denied the plaintiff’s objection.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- July 30, 2021
Background
On July 13, 2021, Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker rescheduled the initial case-management conference and granted the defendant’s request to stay discovery. On July 16, Judge Parker rescheduled the conference again, this time to October 12, 2021. On July 29, the plaintiff asked the court to vacate the discovery stay.
Because the plaintiff was proceeding without a lawyer, the court interpreted the request liberally as an objection to a magistrate judge’s ruling.
Legal standard
A stay of discovery is a nondispositive matter, meaning it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside such a ruling if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, after considering the evidence, is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant law or procedural rules. Magistrate judges’ rulings on nondispositive matters receive substantial deference and may be overturned only for an abuse of discretion.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield held that the discovery stay was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and was not an abuse of discretion. The court therefore ordered that the plaintiff’s objection to Judge Parker’s order staying discovery was DENIED.
Disposition
The plaintiff’s objection was denied. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.