Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc.

Background

Lenora Bromfield moved for reconsideration of the court’s February 28, 2022 order. She asked the court to vacate orders entered by Judge Henry B. Pitman in January and April 2018, and to extend by one week her deadline to produce documents and a deposition correction sheet required by the February 28 order.

In 2018, Bromfield had stated in a letter that she was giving up her right to take depositions and asked to serve up to 100 written questions instead. Judge Pitman’s April 4, 2018 order recognized that waiver and allowed her to serve up to 100 written questions. Fact discovery had closed on July 24, 2018. In November 2021, the court allowed a limited reopening of discovery so the defendants could question Bromfield about her newly added race-discrimination claim. The February 28, 2022 order directed Bromfield to produce additional damages documents after that deposition and denied her request to take additional depositions.

Bromfield previously sought reconsideration of the February 28 order, arguing that fraud justified undoing her waiver and permitting depositions of four non-party witnesses. The court denied that earlier request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from an order only for specified reasons such as fraud, newly discovered evidence, mistake, or other exceptional circumstances.

Bromfield’s Arguments

In the present motion, Bromfield submitted a sworn statement asserting that she had waived depositions unknowingly and without knowing about fraud she said the defendants had committed. She also repeated allegations concerning discrimination, retaliation, a patient-injury investigation, and alleged concealment of information. She argued that she had not received fair and complete discovery and again asked to depose four non-party witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Bromfield had not shown that any provision of Rule 60(b) applied or that exceptional circumstances justified relief. Although her sworn statement attempted to explain why she waited nearly four years before alleging fraud, the court found that it repeated many allegations from her amended complaint. The court also determined that the waiver letter was a voluntary submission by Bromfield, not an agreement to which the defendants or anyone else were parties.

The court concluded that Bromfield had not identified facts or legal authority that the court overlooked when entering the January 24, 2018, April 4, 2018, or February 28, 2022 orders. Reconsideration was therefore not warranted. The order did not decide whether Bromfield’s underlying discrimination or other allegations were true.

Disposition

The court granted the motion in part to extend Bromfield’s deadline to produce the damages documents to March 25, 2022, and otherwise denied the motion. The defendants were directed to file a letter by April 1, 2022, confirming receipt of the damages documents. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Bromfield a copy of the order.