Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2022
• Docket Number: 18-CV-6588-FPG
• Parties: FRESH AIR FOR THE EASTSIDE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, L.L.C., and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

FRESH AIR FOR THE EASTSIDE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, L.L.C., and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-6588-FPG

United States District Court, W.D. New York

November 23, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. (“FAFE”) and approximately 200 individual plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Waste Management of New York, LLC (“Defendant”) and New York City (“NYC”) alleging violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (“RCRA”), the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., (the “CAA”), and state law claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and trespass.^[1]These claims arise from Defendant's operation of the High Acres Landfill and Recycling Center in Perinton, New York, and NYC's agreement with Defendant to ship municipal solid waste to the Landfill each year for thirty years. See ECF No. 15; ECF No. 44 at 1.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' objections to United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen's Order which, inter alia, (1) directed Plaintiffs to provide Defendant with medical authorizations for any Plaintiff claiming “physical impacts/injuries”; and (2) directed Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 through 11. ECF No. 127 at 4.

1

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' First Objection and Third Objection are SUSTAINED; those portions of Judge Pedersen's Order, ECF No. 127, are VACATED as set forth below. Plaintiff's Second Objection is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND^[2]

During discovery in this matter, Defendant moved to compel Plaintiffs to provide access to their medical records. ECF No. 101-1. Plaintiffs opposed that motion. ECF No. 107; ECF No. 108.

Judge Pedersen granted Defendant's motion insofar as he ordered:

Based upon the various impacts/injuries reported by 159 Plaintiffs as demonstrated in Exhibits L1-L159 attached to the Affirmation of Joseph D. Piciotti, dated October 1, 2020 the undersigned finds that the listed impacts/injuries are more than “garden variety” or “quality of life” claims, which entitles WMNY to authorizations to obtain medical records to the extent that physical impacts are claimed, limited, however, to those records reflecting “medical conditions the symptoms of or treatment for which could have resulted in the same type of physical symptoms that Plaintiffs have described” for one year prior to and one year subsequent to the three-year period at issue in this matter. See EEOC v. Nichols, 256 F.R.D. 114, 122-123 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). Each Identified Plaintiff, as well as each other Plaintiff intending to introduce evidence of, or seek damages for, physical impacts/injuries must provide these authorizations by October 22, 2021. The Court further finds that WMNY must meet a higher threshold to obtain psychotherapist records as recognized by the Supreme Court in Jaffe v. Redmond 518 U.S. 1, 116 (1996). Accordingly, if WMNY finds during depositions that any Plaintiffs sought psychotherapy treatment, WMNY is permitted to return to this Court to put forth arguments as to why it is entitled to authorizations to obtain any such records[.]

ECF No. 127 at 4.

Plaintiffs filed objections to Judge Pedersen's Order on three grounds. ECF No. 130. First, Plaintiffs assert that, because they have alleged loss of quality of life and/or “garden-variety” impacts, rather than personal injuries, this Court should vacate Judge Pedersen's Order “to the

2

extent it found that Plaintiffs' impacts were more than allegations to support their claims of loss of quality of life claims or garden-variety impacts.”^[3]ECF No. 130 at 2.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Judge Pedersen erred in “lump[ing] all of the Plaintiffs and their individual alleged impacts together.” Id. Thus, they request this Court vacate that portion of Judge Pedersen's Order or “modify the [o]rder to specifically enumerate which impacts, if any, go beyond a loss of quality of life and/or garden-variety claim, and which do not require any production.” Id.

Finally, Plaintiffs urge this Court to find that their responses to WMNY Interrogatories 8 through 11 are sufficient because they “have expressly disavowed any personal injury claims.” Id. Thus, they would have this Court vacate the portion of the Order requiring all Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to Interrogatories 8 through 11. Id.

Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' objections requesting that this Court affirm Judge Pedersen's Order, ECF No. 137, and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief, ECF No. 139.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Section 636(b)(1)(A) of Title 28 of the United States Code permits a district judge to ‘designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any [nondispositive] pretrial matter,' not otherwise expressly excluded therein. Any party may serve and file objections to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial matter within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Upon consideration of any timely interposed objections and “reconsider[ation]” of the magistrate judge's order, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order that “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.;

3

see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). However, a party may not assign as error any defect in a magistrate judge's order to which no timely objection has been made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “This standard of review is highly deferential, and magistrate judges are...