Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

Background

Saul Sabino, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Port Authority Police Department and two Port Authority police officers. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with his arrest. This opinion addressed pending discovery objections, a request for sanctions, and motions seeking default judgment against Marshalls of New York, Marshalls Retail Group, and Marshalls employee Vincent Johnson.

Discovery objections

Sabino objected to a magistrate judge’s November 2, 2022 order denying his motion to compel production of electronically stored information from his cell phone. In particular, he sought photographs of post-arrest injuries that he said he had taken while at Bellevue Hospital. Sabino stated that the phone had been taken from him and kept as evidence in his state criminal case, and he argued that the Port Authority Police Department was responsible for producing the photographs.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the district court could change the magistrate judge’s discovery ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that this is a highly deferential standard and that the party challenging the ruling has a heavy burden.

The court held that Sabino had not met that burden. The defendants represented that the phone was stored at the New York City Police Department Property Clerk’s Office and that they had no oversight or control over that office. They also stated that the phone could be obtained by Sabino or a person he designated in a notarized letter. The court found Sabino’s contrary assertions conclusory and speculative and overruled his objection to the denial of the motion to compel.

Sabino also objected that he had not received notice of the magistrate judge’s order. The court overruled that argument, noting that he had received the order because he filed an objection and attached it as an exhibit.

Sanctions request and malicious-prosecution allegations

Sabino’s objections appeared to request sanctions against defense counsel for allegedly making false and misleading statements. The court found his arguments conclusory and speculative and denied the sanctions request.

The objections also discussed alleged malicious prosecution. The court noted that a malicious-prosecution claim was not then pending, although Sabino had separately moved for leave to amend his complaint to add that and other allegations. The court stated that it would consider those allegations when deciding the motion to amend.

Default-judgment motions

Sabino sought default judgment against Marshalls of New York, Marshalls Retail Group, and Vincent Johnson. A default judgment is a judgment based on a party’s failure to plead or otherwise defend after being sued. The court held that these motions were improper because the Marshalls entities and Johnson were not parties to the action and therefore could not have defaulted on claims against them.

Sabino had submitted documents styled as a second and third amended complaint that attempted to name the Marshalls parties. The magistrate judge treated those submissions as part of Sabino’s motion for leave to amend because his time to amend as of right had expired. The Marshalls parties had not yet been added as defendants.

The court therefore denied Sabino’s motions for default judgment without prejudice. It stated that whether the Marshalls parties could properly be added would be resolved when the court ruled on Sabino’s motion for leave to amend. The clerk was directed to close the docket entries for the objections, sanctions request, and default-judgment motions and to mail the order to Sabino.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl overruled Sabino’s objections to the discovery ruling, denied the related request for sanctions, and denied without prejudice the motions for default judgment against the Marshalls parties and Vincent Johnson. The opinion did not decide the merits of Sabino’s underlying constitutional claims.