*1 This order addresses objections that Plaintiff has filed, pursuant to Rule 72(a), to discovery orders entered by Magistrate Judge Dunst in two related cases: New Falls Corporation v. Soni Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-6805 (the “Breach of Guaranty Action”), and New Falls Corporation v. Soni, et al., No. 18-cv-2768 (the “Fraudulent Conveyance Action”). Both cases relate to a defaulted loan borrowed by Soni Holdings, LLC, and allegedly guaranteed by Om Soni. In the Breach of Guaranty Action, Plaintiff seeks to collect on that guaranty. In the Fraudulent Conveyance Action, Plaintiff alleges that Om Soni fraudulently conveyed his interest in his primary residence to his wife, Anjali Soni, in order to frustrate collection of his guaranty. The Court has reviewed Judge Dunst's orders in both cases, along with the parties’ papers related to Plaintiff's objections, and denies Plaintiff's objections for the reasons set forth below.

Rule 72(a) authorizes magistrate judges to decide non-dispositive pretrial matters such as discovery disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). If a party objects within 14 days to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter, then the district judge must consider those objections “and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. In this context, “[a]n order is clearly erroneous if, based on all the evidence, a reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” and “[a]n order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” United States v. Town of Oyster Bay, No. 14-cv-2317, 2022 WL 4485154, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022).[1] This standard of review is “highly deferential” and affords magistrate judges “broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes.” Duffy v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., No. 15-cv-7407, 2022 WL 1810732, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2022).

I. Plaintiff's Discovery Objections in the Breach of Guaranty Action[2]

The Court affirms Judge Dunst's discovery rulings in the Breach of Guaranty Action. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce un-redacted versions of Defendant's counsel's correspondence with non-party Regions Bank, and some of those communications included Defendant. But Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of showing that Judge Dunst clearly erred in determining that the redacted information was not relevant to Plaintiff's claim, not within the scope of Plaintiff's discovery requests, or protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

Judge Dunst previously denied Plaintiff's request to serve a subpoena for the production of documents on Defendant's tax preparer but permitted Plaintiff to depose that tax preparer. ECF No. 206; ECF Order dated Feb. 22, 2023. Plaintiff never objected to Judge Dunst's denial of its request to serve a document subpoena within the 14-day period after Judge Dunst issued that order, as required by Rule 72(a). In light of these prior rulings, and the relatively limited relevance of tax preparation documents to the issue of whether Om Soni failed to pay his guaranty, Judge Dunst's denial of Plaintiff's requests for documents following the tax preparer's deposition was not clearly erroneous.

*2 Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that the various documents it requested from Defendant's expert witness during her deposition are sufficiently relevant to the issues in this case. Judge Dunst's decision not to compel that expert to produce those documents was, therefore, not clearly erroneous. However, the Court agrees that the parties are entitled to updated curriculum vitae for any expert witness who intends to testify in this case. The Court, therefore, directs that if the Breach of Guaranty action goes to trial, the parties shall exchange updated curriculum vitae for their expert witnesses 30 days in advance of trial.

II. Plaintiff's Discovery Objection in the Fraudulent Conveyance Action[3]

In the Fraudulent Conveyance action, Judge Dunst denied Plaintiff's request for documents related to “Defendants’ records of payments of mortgage and household expenses from 2006 through the present” for Om and Anjali Soni's home. ECF Order dated Dec. 5, 2023. The identity of the person making payments related to that property is relevant to Plaintiff's fraudulent conveyance claims, but Judge Dunst did not clearly err in balancing that relevance against the burden of requiring Defendants to produce documents over that prolonged, 17-year period. Judge Dunst's decision is further supported by Plaintiff's delay in seeking these documents. Although the potential relevance of these financial records should have been obvious to Plaintiff from the outset of this case, Plaintiff waited until the deposition of Anjali Soni years later to request them. See ECF No. 132-1 ¶ 8.

The Court recognizes that Magistrate Judge Tomlinson, who previously presided over this case, allowed Plaintiff to seek certain discovery dating back to 2006. See ECF No. 132-8 at 7. However, when denying an earlier discovery objection by Plaintiff in this case, the Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that Judge Tomlinson's prior decisions represent an immutable “law of the case” that binds Judge Dunst. ECF No. 117 at 4–5; see Colvin v. Keen, 900 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine “does not rigidly bind a court to its former decisions”). The Court warns Plaintiff that it will not entertain future discovery objections based on Plaintiff's perceived inconsistencies between different decisions by Judge Tomlinson and Judge Dunst.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's objections to Judge Dunst's discovery orders in the Breach of Guaranty Action, New Falls Corporation v. Soni Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-6805, and the Fraudulent Conveyance Action, New Falls Corporation v. Soni, et al., No. 18-cv-2768.

SO ORDERED.