Order | Filed: July 16, 2026
| Entered: July 16, 2026
Trooper 1 v. New York State Police et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendant Cuomo's notice of appeal 486 of Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl's October 17, 2025 Order 450 (the "Order") granting Plaintiff's motion to quash Defendant Cuomo's deposition subpoenas.
A district judge may modify or set aside any part of [a magistrate judge's non-dispositive pre-trial order] that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(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.). A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that mistake has been committed. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Contr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993) (citation omitted). A finding is contrary to law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure. Khaldei v. Kaspiev, 961 F. Supp. 2d 572, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is a highly deferential standard, [thus the movant] carries a heavy burden. Id.
Defendant Cuomo seeks to appeal Magistrate Judge Merkl's denial of his request for leave to depose two independent medical examiners (the "examiners") and Plaintiff's mother. (Appeal at 6, ECF No. 488.) As to the examiners, Defendant Cuomo argues that Magistrate Merkl overlooked the fact that the examiners reached different conclusions as to Plaintiff's ability to return to work following evaluations that occurred at different times and Plaintiff's alleged recent revelation that she intends to rely on the examiner's testimony. (Id. at 6-7.) These arguments do not address Magistrate Judge Merkl's correct determination that the depositions would be needlessly duplicative and cumulative. (Order at 8.) Nor could they because the depositions would indeed be needlessly duplicative and cumulative. Defendant has already received all relevant examiner reports, could have but chose not to notice these depositions as one of the twenty-five permitted by Magistrate Judge Merkl, and he has already deposed an independent medical examiner who evaluated Plaintiff. (See id.) Under these circumstances, the additional depositions would be cumulative and duplicative. See Bellinger v. Astrue, No. CV-06-321, 2011 WL 4529602, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011) (finding additional depositions would be cumulative where defendant could have conducted these depositions but chose not to, defendant had already deposed an individual with knowledge on the relevant subject, and defendant had already received all documents as to the relevant policies). Because the deposition would be needlessly duplicative and cumulative, Magistrate Judge Merkl properly quashed these subpoenas. See Sanders v. SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr., No. 22-cv-4139, 2024 WL 4198355, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)).
Defendant Cuomo also asks the Court to preclude Plaintiff from relying on the testimony of the examiners. (Appeal at 7-8.) It is true that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) required Plaintiff to identify all witnesses who possessed discoverable information. However, Defendant Cuomo takes issue with Plaintiff's allegedly late identification of the examiners as potential witnesses a disclosure that is required "30 days before trial," and thus is not yet due. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B). Accordingly, the Court also rejects Defendant Cuomo's argument.
Defendant Cuomo also seeks to rappeal Magistrate Judge Merkl's rejection of his deposition as to Plaintiff's mother on the basis that the mother may possess relevant information regarding potential alternative causes for Plaintiff's alleged mental anguish and emotional distress. (Appeal at 8-9.) However, Magistrate Judge Merkl granted Defendant Cuomo's request for a deposition as to Ms. Kiran Miner Plaintiff's talk therapist to whom Plaintiff, by Defendant Cuomo's own admission, "mentioned cultural and other issues within her family to." (Id. at 8.) Thus, the information Defendant Cuomo seeks is already available to him through the deposition of Ms. Miner and therefore the deposition of Plaintiff's mother is also needlessly cumulative and duplicative. Thus, Magistrate Merkl properly quashed the deposition subpoena as to Plaintiffs mother. See Sanders, 2024 WL 4198355, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)).
For the aforeme... (truncated)