Order | Filed: June 30, 2026
| Entered: July 01, 2026
Azzarmi v. Neubauer et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Southern
Memo Endorsement
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 211 Memorandum of Law, filed by Sedgwick SIU, Inc., Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. ENDORSEMENT: A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision addressing a dispositive motion "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "Orders involving discovery are considered nondispositive," Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 571 F. Supp. 3d 106, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), and nondispositive orders must be modified or set aside where they are "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law," Michelo v. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2007-2, Nos. 18-CV-1781, 18-CV-7692, 2022 WL 153183, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). Here, after Plaintiff refused to answer certain questions at a deposition or appear at a later court-ordered deposition, Defendants asked Judge McCarthy either to recommend dismissal of the case or to "rule that Plaintiff is precluded from offering any testimony relating to the subject matter of the deposition questions at issue." (Letter from Peter T. Shapiro to Court (May 11, 2026) (Dkt. No. 198).) Judge McCarthy, declining Defendants' invitation to recommend dismissing the case outright, granted the relief Defendants sought in the alternative and ruled that "Plaintiff is precluded from offering favorable testimony (written or oral) regarding the subject matter of the deposition questions" Plaintiff had refused to answer, and noted Defendants may seek an adverse inference at trial. (Op. & Order 3 (Dkt. No. 209).) Defendants now object, arguing "the Court should rule that Plaintiff cannot include... any allegations about the supposed conduct of the Port Authority." (Objs. 10 (Dkt. No. 211).) Defendants' objections are without merit for two reasons. First, Defendants "have not identified any clear error in the magistrate judge's orders," see Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07-CV-7767, 2014 WL 12797254, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2014), citing no case or rule explaining why Judge McCarthy's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, only arguing Judge McCarthy's sanctions were insufficiently severe, (see Objs. 9-10). Second, Judge McCarthy's sanctions were appropriately tailored to the discovery violation raised in Defendants' letter, i.e., Plaintiff's failure to answer questions at a deposition or appear at a follow-up deposition. See Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market, 20-CV-6835, 2022 WL 17156709, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2022) ("I decline to dismiss this action based on plaintiff's deposition misconduct. Instead, I will preclude the plaintiff, henceforth, from offering favorable testimony as to any of the questions she refused to answer at deposition."); see also Murphy v. Cnty. of Chemung, No. 18-CV-06628, 2025 WL 1903787, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. July 10, 2025) (precluding party from "offering favorable testimony at trial... as to any of the questions that she failed to provide a responsive answer to" in a deposition). Accordingly, seeing no error in the order objected to, Defendants' objections are overruled. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 6/30/2026) (ar)