Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik

Background

The counterclaim-defendants were Roche Freedman LLP, Edward Normand, Devin Freedman, Amos Friedland, and Kyle Roche. They objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s order denying, in relevant part, their request to reopen discovery.

Fact discovery closed on September 30, 2022. On June 26, 2023, the counterclaim-defendants asked to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining recent communications and agreements between Jason Cyrulnik and Nathan Holcomb. Holcomb was a former founding partner of Roche Freedman and a former counterclaim-defendant. After Holcomb indicated that he intended to seek dismissal of Cyrulnik’s counterclaims against him, Holcomb signed a May 4, 2023 declaration supporting Cyrulnik’s motion for summary judgment. Cyrulnik later dismissed his claims against Holcomb.

The counterclaim-defendants sought documents concerning any agreement between Holcomb and Cyrulnik, different versions of Holcomb’s declaration, and related communications. They argued that this material concerned Holcomb’s expected testimony, possible bias, and credibility. Cyrulnik opposed reopening discovery and pointed out that the counterclaim-defendants had questioned Holcomb at his deposition after he had given notice that he was leaving the firm and had retained his own lawyer.

Magistrate Judge’s Order

Magistrate Judge Netburn denied the Roche Freedman parties’ request to reopen discovery and also denied Cyrulnik’s cross-motion to reopen discovery. She determined that the Roche Freedman parties likely had reason to believe before Holcomb’s deposition that he had become adverse to them. She also concluded that Holcomb’s declaration concerned communications with the Roche Freedman parties and their agents, so additional discovery into those communications was not warranted.

The magistrate judge stated that, if Holcomb testified, he could be questioned about the circumstances of his settlement with Cyrulnik. She found that the desire to gather additional evidence for possible impeachment, by itself, did not justify reopening discovery.

District Court Review

Under Rule 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive matter, such as a discovery dispute, only if the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “Contrary to law” means failing to apply or misapplying relevant law or procedural rules. A ruling is “clearly erroneous” when, after reviewing the evidence, the court has a firm conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake.

Judge Koeltl concluded that Magistrate Judge Netburn’s decision was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. He explained that the counterclaim-defendants identified no authority requiring discovery to be reopened in these circumstances and had not shown the good cause needed to reopen discovery after it closed. He also found that Magistrate Judge Netburn was well positioned to decide the issue after overseeing the extensive discovery process.

The court emphasized that Holcomb had left the firm before his deposition and that his declaration concerned communications with the counterclaim-defendants, making additional discovery into those communications unnecessary. The court further held that it was not clear error for the magistrate judge to identify cross-examination about the settlement as a possible way to address the issue at trial. The counterclaim-defendants could also seek relevant documents through a trial subpoena.

Disposition

The court overruled the counterclaim-defendants’ Rule 72(a) objection and directed the Clerk to close the objection at ECF No. 458. The ruling addressed discovery and did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.