Marquez v. Silver

Background

Alexis Marquez brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Marquez is an attorney who was representing herself. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for general pretrial matters, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive motions, and settlement.

The magistrate judge set March 31, 2022, as the deadline for completing fact discovery. His individual procedures required a party seeking discovery-related relief to first confer in good faith with the relevant parties and then promptly request a court conference by letter. The procedures also allowed the court to decide the dispute based on the letters without formal briefing unless a party separately requested formal briefing and explained why it was necessary.

Marquez repeatedly indicated that she intended to file a formal motion to extend discovery. Judge Gorenstein told her to use the required letter procedure instead. After Marquez said she would not attend a scheduled discovery conference because she needed time to prepare her formal motion, the judge confirmed that the conference would proceed and again stated that the required procedure applied to requests for more time. On April 1, 2022, Marquez filed a motion seeking to extend the discovery deadline to March 31, 2023, without first filing the required pre-motion conference letter. On April 4, 2022, Judge Gorenstein denied that motion, stating that it violated prior orders and his individual procedures.

Marquez’s Objections

Marquez objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits a district judge to set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. She argued that the magistrate judge’s procedures denied her access to formal motion practice and conflicted with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b), 7, and 83(b), as well as certain local rules. She asked the district court to set aside the order, find that her extension motion was properly submitted, and set a briefing schedule for that motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that judges may require pre-motion letters before a motion is filed and may deny a motion for failure to comply with that requirement. Courts may also decide disputes using pre-motion letters rather than formal briefing, as long as the parties receive notice and an opportunity to address the substance of the dispute. The court found that Judge Gorenstein had not treated Marquez’s earlier letters as a motion or decided the dispute solely on those letters. Instead, Marquez had filed her formal motion without following repeated instructions to comply with the required procedure.

The court also rejected Marquez’s arguments under Rules 6(b), 7, and 83(b), and the cited local rules. It concluded that Rule 6(b) does not prohibit pre-motion letters, Rule 7 does not prohibit letter motions, and the local rules permit non-dispositive motions by letter while not preventing judges from requiring pre-motion conference letters.

Disposition

Judge Carter declined to set aside Judge Gorenstein’s April 4, 2022 order. The court overruled Marquez’s objections and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order.