Humphreys v. New York City health and Hospitals Corporation

Background

Chantelle A.E. Humphreys, who was proceeding without a lawyer when she filed her amended objection, challenged Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s March 2, 2022 Opinion and Order. Judge Netburn had denied Humphreys’s motion for sanctions against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation based on alleged spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means the loss or destruction of evidence that may be relevant to a case. Humphreys had requested several sanctions, including default judgment, an instruction allowing the jury to draw a negative conclusion from the missing evidence, limits on the defendant’s evidence and arguments, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Humphreys also moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to reopen discovery. She sought additional depositions, written discovery, and an opportunity to amend or supplement her discovery responses concerning documents and information that she said the defendant provided late.

Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order

Judge Broderick first held that Judge Netburn properly entered an order on the sanctions motion rather than a recommendation for the district judge. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may decide pretrial matters except for specifically listed motions. The statute does not list motions for sanctions. The court also explained that whether sanctions are dispositive depends on the sanction actually imposed, not the sanction requested. Because Judge Netburn imposed no sanctions, the order was reviewed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a district judge to set aside a nondispositive order only when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The court held that Humphreys’s objection was untimely. Judge Broderick had extended the deadline to April 6, 2022, but Humphreys filed her initial objection on April 7. The court stated that an untimely objection waives further judicial review and is independently sufficient to reject the objection.

The court further stated that, even if it reviewed the objection because Humphreys was proceeding without a lawyer, the result would be the same. Judge Broderick found no clear error in Judge Netburn’s decision. In particular, Humphreys had not produced evidence showing that the defendant had the required culpable state of mind in failing to retain documents, had not shown why the documents were relevant, and had not shown prejudice. The court also stated that actual loss or destruction of relevant documents is required for spoliation sanctions.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

The court explained that reopening discovery requires good cause. Relevant considerations include whether the parties already had an adequate opportunity for discovery, whether trial is imminent, whether the request is opposed, whether reopening would prejudice the opposing party, whether the moving party acted diligently, whether the need for additional discovery was foreseeable, and whether the additional discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.

Judge Broderick found that all six considerations weighed against reopening discovery. Discovery had closed more than two years earlier. Humphreys did not show that the additional discovery was likely to produce relevant evidence, relying instead on a conclusory statement that relevant evidence might result. The court also found that reopening discovery would prejudice the defendant’s ability to meet its summary-judgment deadline, and the defendant opposed the motion.

Disposition

The court overruled Humphreys’s objection, adopted Judge Netburn’s Opinion and Order, and denied Humphreys’s Motion to Reopen Discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion at docket number 158.