USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #0 DATE FILED:_ 11/19/2024 CARMAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff DISCOVERY ORDER

~against- 23-CV-5460 (AS) (KHP) NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge. Presently before the Court are several discovery motions and issues raised by Plaintiff Carman Williams.+ The Court addresses these discovery issues below. September 29, 2024 Letter On September 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter raising the following issues: (1) that Defendants did not conduct a search of emails with BCCs as directed by the Court, (2) that Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with Bridget McNeil’s coordinator journals, (3) that Plaintiff should be permitted to depose Bridget McNeil, (4) that Plaintiff has not been permitted to obtain additional discovery related to a document produced by Defendants containing a list of individuals who were recommended for termination in 2022.

As to the first item, Plaintiff is mistaken. On June 20, 2024, the Court directed Defendants to reproduce emails they produced to Plaintiff in electronic format on a thumb drive, in order to allow Plaintiff to view BCCs, if any. (ECF 104.) Defendants filed a letter on June

1 The Court specifically directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding motions on October 28, 2024. (ECF No. 184.) Defendants did not do so. Although the Court indicated in a prior Order that it would summarily deny Plaintiff’s redundant discovery motions, this is not an excuse for failing to comply with a Court Order. Failure to comply with Court Orders in the future may result in sanctions on defense counsel.

25, 2024 sta�ng that they “do not have the technical ability to force the so�ware to print blank BCC fields.” (ECF No. 108.) As a result, on July 9, 2024 the Court narrowed its June 20 Order so that Defendants only needed to reproduce emails that actually contained BCCs. (ECF No. 116.)

Defendants later confirmed via leter dated July 24, 2024 that their search found that no emails contained BCC lines, so there were no emails to reproduce in electronic format. (ECF 136.) Therefore, Plain�ff is incorrect that Defendants did not conduct the search for emails containing BCCs as directed by the Court. Rather, Defendants simply communicated that they did not have the capabili�es to print a BCC line where no individuals were BCC’d.

As to the remaining three items raised by Plain�ff, these issues have all been addressed in the Court’s order dated September 26, 2024. (ECF No. 177.) Therefore, the Court construes Plain�ff’s leter as a mo�on for reconsidera�on. Reconsidera�on is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conserva�on of scarce judicial resources.” In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (internal cita�on

omited). The Second Circuit has held that the standard for gran�ng a mo�on to reconsider “is strict, and reconsidera�on will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- maters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1995). Reconsidera�on is appropriate where the moving party

demonstrates “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injus�ce.” Henderson v. Metro. Bank & Tr. Co.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2007). A mo�on for reconsidera�on should be denied “where the moving party seeks solely to reli�gate an issue already decided.” Shrader,

. Here, Plain�ff has not pointed to controlling decisions, new evidence, or a clear error that would jus�fy reconsidera�on. Further, Plain�ff was warned in the Court’s Order dated August 19, 2024, that because Plain�ff has filed numerous leters reques�ng discovery she has

already sought, any further discovery mo�ons will be summarily denied if they have raised issues previously decided. (ECF No. 155.) Accordingly, Plain�ff’s September 29, 2024 mo�on for reconsidera�on is DENIED. Mo�on to Compel On October 18, 2024, Plain�ff filed a mo�on to compel the produc�on of the USB drive

that the Court previously ordered Defendants to produce in order to reveal whether individuals had been BCC’d on emails. (ECF No. 183.) As explained above, the Court narrowed its June 20 Order so that Defendants only needed to reproduce emails that actually contained BCCs and Defendants later confirmed via leter that their search found that no emails contained BCC lines, so there were no emails to reproduce. Accordingly, Plain�ff’s mo�on to compel is DENIED. October 1, 2024 Leter

On October 1, 2024, Plain�ff filed a leter asser�ng for the second �me that she should be permited to depose Bridget McNeil and “examine” or “seek informa�on from” Bryan Cambrelen. (ECF No. 179.) In the Court’s September 26, 2024 Order, the Court denied Plain�ff’s request to reopen discovery for the purpose of deposing McNeil and serving interrogatories on Cambrelen, no�ng that Plain�ff had provided no explana�on as to why she did not no�ce McNeil’s deposi�on or subpoena Cambrelen during the discovery period, nor did

she provide any detail as to how deposing McNeil or subpoenaing Cambrelen would support her claims. (ECF No. 177.) Plain�ff now asserts that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery that is relevant to a party’s claims or defenses, and according to Plain�ff, the Court did not consider that deposing McNeil or subpoenaing Cambrelen would produce discovery relevant to Defendants’ defenses.

The Court construes this leter as a mo�on for reconsidera�on. First, despite arguing that the Court did not consider relevance to Defendants’ defenses, Plain�ff does not explain how the discovery she seeks from McNeil or Cambrelen relates to Defendants’ defenses. Second, Defendants have already searched Cambrelen’s ESI for Plain�ff’s name and poll worker number and produced responsive documents. (See ECF No. 169.) Finally, Plain�ff has not

pointed to controlling decisions, new evidence, or a clear error that would jus�fy reconsidera�on. Therefore, Plain�ff’s October 1, 2024 mo�on for reconsidera�on is DENIED. October 9, 2024 Leter In a leter filed October 9, 2024, Plain�ff seeks to reopen discovery because she asserts Defendants did not produce the names of poll workers who were discharged or not hired between 2020 and 2022. (ECF No. 180.) On May 13, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to

produce discharges of other poll workers who were discharged or not hired for disciplinary reasons between 2020-2022 to the extent those decisions were made by the people who supervised Plain�ff in 2022 and Defendant Ellaby. (ECF No. 80.) Defendants have previously represented to the Court that they complied with the Court’s May 13, 2024 Order. (ECF No. 96.) In addi�on, Defendants have produced a list of individuals recommended for termina�on in 2022 and the Court has rejected Plain�ff’s request for further discovery concerning that list.

(See ECF No. 88, 99, 177.) Finally, Plain�ff cannot seek further discovery five months a�er the discovery deadline, par�cularly where she provides no jus�fica�on for the delay. See, e.g. Eng– Hatcher v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 07 Civ. 7350 (BSJ)(KNF),

, at *1 (S.D.NY. Aug. 28, 2008) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery is DENIED. October 28, 2024 Letter Plaintiff filed a letter on October 28, 2024 asserting for the second time that she has not received coordinator journals for the year 2019. (ECF No. 185.) In Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s previous letter raising this issue, Defendants represented that no notes were entered regarding Plaintiff’s performance during the twelve days she worked in 2019 and therefore there were no additional documents to produce. (ECF No. 169.) Since the Court already ruled on this request in its September 26, 2024 Order, the Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has not pointed to controlling decisions, new evidence, or a clear error that would justify reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s October 28, 2024 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 180 and 183 and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024 Katha H Fate New York, New York KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge