Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-06099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied reconsideration of a discovery ruling because no new law, facts, or clear error was shown.
Shim-Larkin’s request to revisit the discovery ruling was denied; the City of New York and Shim-Larkin were directed to propose a schedule for anticipated summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision rejecting an objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling. The motion concerned the plaintiff’s late disclosure in the case.
The plaintiff argued that the court had overlooked arguments and cited sources, mischaracterized Magistrate Judge Fox’s order, and should consider that the City’s initial response did not object to the disclosure’s timing. The court held that these points did not show a new legal development, new evidence, clear error, or injustice. It also stated that the disclosure deadline was January 23, 2018 and that the plaintiff had not shown an acceptable reason for making the disclosure more than two years after discovery closed.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion for reconsideration and stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court said that all outstanding discovery disputes and pending motions were resolved and ordered the parties to submit a joint letter proposing a schedule for anticipated summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Shim-Larkin v. City of New York · No. 1:16-cv-06099
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
The court had previously denied Shim-Larkin’s objection to a decision by Magistrate Judge Fox concerning discovery. Shim-Larkin then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision. The motion was fully briefed.
Arguments and analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. It is not a way to relitigate issues already considered or present the case under new theories.
Shim-Larkin repeated earlier arguments, claimed that the court had overlooked arguments and supporting sources, and alleged that the court had mischaracterized Magistrate Judge Fox’s November 24, 2020 order. The court rejected these grounds. It acknowledged that the City’s initial response to Shim-Larkin’s August 10, 2020 disclosure did not include a timeliness objection, but found that this did not change the result. The court stated that Magistrate Judge Fox had clearly set January 23, 2018 as the deadline and that Shim-Larkin could not establish an acceptable reason for making the disclosure more than two years after discovery closed. Shim-Larkin had not provided new facts or law that would change that conclusion.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied the motion for reconsideration and stated that the order resolved docket number 768. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it found that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court also stated that all outstanding discovery disputes and pending motions were resolved, and ordered the parties to file a joint letter by May 6, 2022 proposing a schedule for briefing anticipated summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.