Order | Filed: July 29, 2026
Bhagat v. Shah
P.I.: Other | New York Southern
Order
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 496 Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Extension of Time 528 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motio n for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 270 Order on Motion for Sanctions,, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 485 Order on Motion to Unseal, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Disco very, Order on Motion for Conference 575 Order. Now before the Court are Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) objections to Judge Tarnofsky' s reconsideration order. See Dkt. 724. Defendant urges that she "is not a defendant who sl ept on her rights during discovery and woke up after the deadline," but " who sought the documents throughout discovery... and still doesn't have a complete unredacted production because [Plaintiff has] under-complied with" th e Court's prior discovery orders. Id. at 2. In her objections, Defendant leans heavily on her expert discovery argument, contending that Plaintiffs 2022, 2023, and 2024 Forms W-2 are "materials considered by" Plaintiffs damages e xpert, and are thus subject to mandatory disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii), notwithstanding expiration of the discovery period. Id. at 2-3. "Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 'when a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide,' the district court 'must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."' Michela v. Nat'/ Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2007-2, Nos. 18-CV-1781 (PGG) (BCM), 18-CV-7692 (PGG) (BCM), 2022 WL 153183, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022) (alteration omitted). "Orders involving discovery are con sidered nondispositive." Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Bank ofN Y. Mellon, 571 F. Supp. 3d 106, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2021 ). "' An order is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conv iction that a mistake has been committed' and is 'contrary to law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules of procedure."' Id. (quoting BlackrockAllocation Target Shares: Series S. Portfolio v. W ells Fargo Bank, Nat'/Ass'n, No. 14-CV-10067 (KPF) (SN), 2018 WL 3863447, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because "[a] magistrate judge is best qualified 'to judge the entire atmosphere of the d iscovery process,'" her "rulings on discovery matters are entitled to substantial deference." U2 Home Entm't Inc. v. Hong Wei Int'/ Trading Inc., No. 04-CV-6189 (JFK), 2007 WL 2327068, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2007)). Th e party objecting to a magistrate judge's order carries a "heavy burden" of showing that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 336 F.R.D. 400, 404 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that an expert witness must disclose "the facts or data considered by the witness in forming" his opinions. "The courts have embraced an objective test that defines 'co nsidered' in Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) as anything received, reviewed, read, or authored by the expert, before or in connection with the forming of his opinion, if the subject matter relates to the facts or opinions expressed." In re Mirena IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396,470 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (alterations adopted) (quoting Euclid Chem. Co. v. Vector Corrosion Techs., Inc., No. 05-CV-80, 2007 WL 1560277, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2007)). Whatever the discovery deadline may have b een in this case, and notwithstanding that the deadline has long since passed, it seems clear from Plaintiffs damages report that his expert relied on W-2s from 2022, 2023, and 2024, and tax returns for 2022, 2023, and 2024. See Dkt. 722-1 at 3 (sour ces "relied upon" by Plaintiffs damages expert). As such, the Court agrees with Defendant that she is entitled to review those materials in the form in which Plaintiffs expert reviewed them. Thu... (truncated)
Order | Filed: July 29, 2026
Bhagat v. Shah
P.I.: Other | New York Southern
Order
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 723 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 708 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. filed by Anuja Sharad Shah. Defendant's motion for reconsideration is, therefore, GRANTED, in part. If Plaintiff mai ntains his position that the Meta arbitration has been stayed pending the outcome of this action, not later than Friday, July 31, 2026, Plaintiff must submit a declaration, made under oath, confirming the same, and must provide documentation (in the form of scheduling orders or transcripts) from the arbitration reflecting that the arbitration has been stayed pending this action. If the arbitration has proceeded, then Plaintiff must, not later than Friday, November 13, 2026, disclose to the Court , in camera, (i) whether the arbitration against Meta has been resolved, (ii) the amount of compensation, if any, he was awarded in the arbitration, and (iii) the nature and categories of the recovery. Plaintiff must provide all documentation necess ary to allow the Court to verify the accuracy of his assertions. The Court will take under advisement when such information should be disclosed to the Defendant. As Defendant noted in her Motion for Reconsideration, this issue need not be resolved pr ior to trial. See Dkt. 723 at 9. The Court will hold in abeyance Defendant's request that the Court establish a procedure now for resolving any offset or double-recovery issue that may arise pending Plaintiffs arbitration-related disclosures. Th e Court will also hold in abeyance Defendant's request that she be permitted to discuss the arbitration at trial. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 723. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/29/2026) (ar)