Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Background

Heena Shim-Larkin, representing herself and proceeding without paying filing fees, sued the City of New York in an employment-discrimination action. The opinion states that she alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

The district court had referred general pretrial matters, including discovery, to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The opinion addressed two objections to Magistrate Judge Fox’s discovery orders: the City’s objection to sanctions concerning its interrogatory responses, and Shim-Larkin’s objection to the refusal to require answers to her contention interrogatories.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may review a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order. The district court may change that order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.

The City’s objection to sanctions

The court denied the City’s objections to sanctions imposed over several interrogatories.

For Interrogatory No. 1, Shim-Larkin sought contact information for a female Department of Education employee who visited Tompkins Square Park. The district court agreed that Shim-Larkin had improperly raised one argument for the first time in her reply, but concluded that this was not the only basis for the sanction and that Magistrate Judge Fox could have reached the same result without relying on that argument.

For Interrogatory No. 2, Shim-Larkin requested Javier Rodriguez’s full name, title, address, phone number, and email address. The City argued that it had understood an earlier order to require only an additional search for an email address. The district court rejected that interpretation and held that the sanction was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law because the City had not provided a phone number and had a further opportunity to do so.

For Interrogatory No. 3, Shim-Larkin requested policies or practices concerning the assignment or transfer of lifeguards to pools during the summer of 2015. The City referred her to various human-resources documents without identifying a specific policy or page. The district court concluded that the City had not shown that Magistrate Judge Fox’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, including because the City continued to rely on an interpretation of an earlier court order that Magistrate Judge Fox had rejected.

For Interrogatory No. 5, Shim-Larkin requested policies or practices concerning lifeguards’ regular days off. The City argued that it had no written or official policy. The district court explained that the request covered practices as well as written policies and upheld the finding that the City had not fully disclosed its policies and practices.

For Interrogatory No. 6, Shim-Larkin requested video footage of herself and information about certain people’s knowledge of that footage. The City submitted a supplemental response titled “Supplemental Response and Objections” even though it had been ordered to respond without objections. The district court held that Magistrate Judge Fox did not clearly err by imposing a sanction rather than merely striking the word “objections,” because the City had disregarded a court order.

The City also argued that some objection language in later supplemental responses was included by typographical error or because of an unchanged template. The district court held that this explanation was raised too late because it had not been presented in the City’s opposition to the sanctions motion. The court therefore upheld the sanctions order as neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Shim-Larkin’s objection to the contention interrogatories

Shim-Larkin served contention interrogatories seeking information about the City’s claims and defenses before discovery was nearly complete. Magistrate Judge Fox ruled that the timing was improper and later refused to require the City to answer them. The district court noted that the parties agreed the interrogatories were served four months before discovery closed, contrary to Local Civil Rule 33.3(c), which generally permits such interrogatories at the conclusion of other discovery and at least 30 days before the discovery deadline.

The district court also noted that courts in the circuit generally require contention interrogatories to be postponed until after discovery is completed. It concluded that Magistrate Judge Fox’s refusal to compel answers was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Disposition

The court overruled both objections. This left the sanctions against the City and its counsel in place and left unchanged the refusal to compel answers to Shim-Larkin’s contention interrogatories. The opinion resolved docket numbers 689 and 705. It did not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims.

Judge Alison J. Nathan, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, signed the order on April 27, 2022.