Song v. Turtil
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-02269
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Song v. Turtil, Judge Briccetti overruled Song’s objections to denial of his request to add a self-authored expert report.
Jeehyung Thomas Song and Lawrence C. Turtil, because the court left in place the order denying Song’s request to add his self-authored expert report to the discovery record.
What happened
Song v. Turtil involved plaintiff Jeehyung Thomas Song’s objections to a magistrate judge’s decision. Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause had denied Song’s request to change the scheduling order so he could submit an additional expert disclosure written by himself.
Song argued that the report should be admitted as evidence. Judge Krause had determined that Song’s opinions could not support his claims and that testimony based on the report would be inadmissible, making further discovery to add it unnecessary.
Judge Briccetti found no clear error or legal mistake in Judge Krause’s decision and overruled Song’s objections. The court directed the clerk to terminate Song’s motion.
The detailed version
- Song v. Turtil · No. 7:21-cv-02269
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 23, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Jeehyung Thomas Song, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion to “admit evidence.” The court construed that motion as objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause’s April 27, 2022, decision and order.
Judge Krause had denied Song’s request to revise the scheduling order to permit service of an additional expert disclosure authored by Song himself. Judge Krause concluded that the opinions in Song’s self-authored report could not be used to support Song’s claims and that any expert testimony based on the report would be inadmissible. Judge Krause therefore found that expanding discovery to include the report would be futile and unnecessarily time-consuming.
Standard of Review
For a magistrate judge’s order resolving a non-dispositive matter, the district court must modify or set aside a portion that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A factual finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A legal conclusion is contrary to law when it conflicts with controlling legal authority. The objecting party bears a heavy burden under this deferential standard.
Ruling
The court reviewed Judge Krause’s decision and order, Song’s proposed self-authored expert report, and the parties’ briefing. It found no error, clear or otherwise, and no ruling contrary to law. Judge Briccetti therefore overruled Song’s objections to the decision and order. The clerk was instructed to terminate Song’s motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.