Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc.
- Carter
- 1:16-cv-10047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon, Judge Carter denied Bromfield’s requests to restore depositions, amend, and reopen discovery, while allowing defendants to seek summary judgment.
Lenora Bromfield’s requests to undo the deposition waiver, file a second amended complaint, and reopen discovery were denied. The defendants were allowed to file a motion for summary judgment.
What happened
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc., pro se plaintiff Lenora Bromfield asked to undo orders reflecting her agreement to give up depositions, file a second amended complaint, and reopen discovery based on allegedly new evidence.
The court rejected her objections to Magistrate Judge Cave’s recommendation and denied all three requests. It found that Bromfield voluntarily exchanged depositions for permission to serve hundreds of written questions, offered only conclusory fraud allegations, and proposed amendments that would be legally futile and unfairly prejudicial at this stage.
Judge Carter adopted the recommendation, denied relief from the earlier orders, denied leave to amend, and denied reopening discovery. The court also allowed defendants to file a motion for summary judgment under a schedule set for May and June 2023.
The detailed version
- Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-10047
- Carter
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Lenora Bromfield, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the district court to reopen parts of the pretrial process. She sought relief from two 2018 orders by Magistrate Judge Pitman that recorded her waiver of depositions. She also sought permission to file a second amended complaint and to reopen discovery based on alleged newly discovered evidence.
The requests concerning the second amended complaint and discovery were addressed in a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. Bromfield objected to that recommendation. The district court reviewed the recommendation, the parties’ filings, and the other relevant materials.
Request to undo the deposition waiver
Bromfield invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1), which permits an independent action in limited circumstances, and Rule 60(d)(3), which addresses fraud on the court. The court explained that an independent action is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice and that fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence of conduct seriously affecting the integrity of the judicial process.
The court found that Bromfield voluntarily agreed to give up depositions in exchange for permission to serve up to 100 interrogatories. The opinion states that she served hundreds of interrogatories and that defendants responded to more than the number allowed by the court. The court concluded that this voluntary decision was not a grave miscarriage of justice. It also found that Bromfield’s fraud allegations were conclusory and did not identify facts showing that defendants or the court made a misleading statement that caused her to waive depositions. The motion for relief from Judge Pitman’s January 24, 2018 order and April 3, 2018 order was therefore denied.
Second amended complaint and reopening discovery
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s order and may change an order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court stated that Judge Cave’s recommendation was neither.
The court adopted Judge Cave’s findings that Bromfield’s proposed amendments would be legally futile and that allowing them at this stage would cause undue prejudice to defendants. An amendment is legally futile when the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss. The court therefore denied Bromfield’s motions for leave to file a second amended complaint and to reopen discovery.
Disposition
The court overruled Bromfield’s objections in their entirety and adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation. It denied Bromfield’s request for relief from Judge Pitman’s orders, denied leave to file a second amended complaint, and denied the request to reopen discovery. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 276, 298, and 310.
The court separately granted defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment concerning the claims in Bromfield’s amended complaint. It set deadlines of May 1, 2023, for defendants’ initial motion, May 31, 2023, for Bromfield’s opposition, and June 15, 2023, for defendants’ reply, if any.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.