Opinion
21 CV 2269 (VB)
06-23-2022
JEEHYUNG THOMAS SONG Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE C. TURTIL, Defendant,
ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
Now pending is plaintiff's “motion to admit evidence” (Doc, #61), by which plaintiff, proceeding pro se, objects to Magistrate Judge Andrew E, Krause's April 27, 2022, Decision and Order (Doc. #59), denying plaintiffs application to revise the scheduling order in this case (Docs. ##50, 54) to allow for plaintiffs service of an additional expert disclosure authored by plaintiff himself. (Doc. #56). Judge Krause concluded the opinions plaintiff offers in his selfauthored report cannot be used to support his claims in this case, and that any purported expert testimony plaintiff would seek to offer based on his report would be inadmissible. The magistrate judge thus concluded it would be futile and unnecessarily time-consuming to expand the discovery record to allow for the inclusion of plaintiffs self-authored report.
The Court construes plaintiffs motion as objections to the Decision and Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's order resolving a non-dispositive matter must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” test “is a highly deferential standard, and the objector thus carries a heavy burden.” Khaldei v, Kaspiev, 961 F.Supp.2d 572, 575 (S.D.N.Y.2013).
The “clearly erroneous” prong of the test focuses on the magistrate judge's factual findings, which are “clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Khaldei v. Kaspiev, 961 F.Supp.2d at 575. The “contrary to law” prong is concerned with the magistrate judge's legal conclusions, which are “contrary to law” if they “run[ ] counter to controlling authority.” Pall Corp, v. Entegris, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 169, 172 (E.D.N.Y.2008).
The Court has reviewed Judge Krause's thorough and well-reasoned Decision and Order, plaintiffs proposed self-authored expert report, the briefing on the motion before Judge Krause, and the briefing on plaintiffs objections. The Court finds no error, clear or otherwise, and no rulings contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES plaintiffs objections to the Decision and Order.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #61).
SO ORDERED: