Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180726_0001201.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:25:10+00:00

Document:
ALLAN DOBRIN, former Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications DoITT Commissioner, BRUCE REGAL, former DoITT Acting Deputy Commissioner, STANLEY SHOR, DoITT Assistant Commissioner, AGOSTINO CANGEMI, DoITT Deputy Commissioner, DEBRA SAMUELSON, DoITT Deputy General Counsel, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
Plaintiff Best Payphones, Inc. appeals Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon's February 26, 2016 order denying Defendants Allan Dobrin, Bruce Regal, Stanley Shor, Agostino Cangemi, Debra Samuelson, and the City of New York's (collectively “Defendants”) motion for spoliation sanctions, except to the extent that Defendants were awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. (See Pl.'s Appeal of Mag. J. Dec., ECF No. 515; Order, Feb. 26, 2016 (“Mag. J. Scanlon's Order”), ECF No. 466.) Plaintiff also appeals Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione's June 27, 2017 order, which set the amount of attorneys' fees and costs for the spoliation motion at $12, 350. (Order (“Mag. J. Tiscione's Order”), ECF No. 509.) For the reasons set forth herein, Magistrate Judge Scanlon's Order is affirmed, and Magistrate Judge Tiscione's Order is affirmed, as modified below.
On appeal of a magistrate judge's order regarding non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as matters concerning discovery, the district court 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); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); see also Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Matters concerning discovery generally are considered ‘nondispositive' of the litigation.”). An order is “clearly erroneous” when upon review of the evidence, the district court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Further, an order is “contrary to law” when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Weiner v. McKeefery, No. 11-CV-2254, 2014 WL 2048381, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2014).
This standard is highly deferential, as magistrate judges are “afforded broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes and reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused.” McNamee v. Clemens, No. 9-CV-1647, 2014 WL 1338720, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2014). “A court abuses its discretion when its decision rests on an error of law or on a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when its decision-though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding-cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, on appeal, the “party seeking to overturn a discovery ruling generally bears a heavy burden.” Com-Tech Associates v. Computer Associates Inter., Inc., 753 F.Supp. 1078, 1099 (E.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir.1991).
The Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Scanlon's determination regarding the relevance of the alleged lost evidence, or that Magistrate Judge Scanlon's findings were contrary to law. “[W]hen the destruction [of evidence] is negligent, relevance must be proven by the party seeking the sanctions.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In this context, the word “relevant . . . means something more than sufficiently probative to satisfy Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rather, the party seeking [sanctions] must adduce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the ‘destroyed . . . evidence would have been of the nature alleged by the party affected by its destruction.'” Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108-109 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Krosnich v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 127 (2d Cir. 1998)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.