Trombetta v. Novocin

Background

Annamarie Trombetta, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Norb Novocin, Marie Novocin, Estate Auctions, Inc., and WorthPoint Corporation. The opinion states that her claims arose under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act, the New York Artists’ Authorship Rights Act, and other legal theories, including identity theft, direct copyright infringement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Trombetta identified Dr. Scelsa and Ms. Skluzacek as proposed expert witnesses. The expert-disclosure deadline was initially December 12, 2022. Magistrate Judge Cave extended it briefly to December 19, 2022, while stating that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Judge Cave later denied another extension request because Trombetta had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

Trombetta nevertheless provided the experts’ reports in February 2023, about two months after the deadline. Judge Cave warned that reports served after the deadline could be stricken. Trombetta later sought permission to use the experts’ testimony in support of her summary-judgment motion. WorthPoint opposed that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which can prevent a party from using information or witnesses that were not properly disclosed. Judge Cave granted WorthPoint’s motion and precluded Trombetta from relying on the experts’ reports or testimony.

Trombetta’s objection

Trombetta asked the district court to review Judge Cave’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which governs objections to a magistrate judge’s non-final procedural decisions. The district court could disturb the order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that a decision is clearly erroneous when the evidence leaves the reviewing court with a firm conviction that a mistake occurred, and that an order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules.

Trombetta argued that Judge Cave had ignored her requests for extensions, that she misunderstood the discovery rules and the importance of the deadline, and that various discovery disputes, a state-court proceeding in Georgia, and an illness prevented her from meeting the deadline. The district court rejected these arguments. It found that Judge Cave had responded to the extension requests and had addressed them in the challenged order. It also stated that being self-represented did not excuse Trombetta from following the applicable procedural and substantive rules.

Ruling

Judge Swain concluded that Trombetta had not shown that Judge Cave’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore overruled Trombetta’s objection and affirmed Judge Cave’s decision precluding Trombetta from using Dr. Scelsa’s and Ms. Skluzacek’s reports or testimony.

The court also denied Trombetta’s pending motions to present those experts’ testimony in connection with her summary-judgment motion. The order states that all remaining evidentiary motions would be considered initially as relevant to the pending summary-judgment motions. The Memorandum Order resolved docket entries 429, 444, and 522.