Svistina v. Elbadramany
1:22-cv-20525
S.D. Fla.Oct 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Elena Svistina alleges Mark Elbadramany sexually assaulted her in a Trump Towers cabana, recorded her without consent, and asserts related tort claims; she also sues the condominium association (TDR) and other service providers for negligence.
- Nonparty Nadine Fahim visited the condominium the night of the incident but did not enter the cabana; Plaintiff seeks to depose her.
- Elbadramany opposed the deposition; Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes denied Svistina’s request to depose Fahim without prejudice, allowing renewal after Svistina deposes Elbadramany.
- Svistina also requested a firm case-management schedule or protocol, which the Magistrate Judge denied without prejudice.
- Svistina objected to the Magistrate Judge’s rulings; the District Court reviewed under the deferential “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard and overruled the objection, affirming the Magistrate Judge’s management of discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposition of nonparty Nadine Fahim | Fahim’s testimony is highly relevant to foreseeability, access, consent, mitigation, and security issues | Fahim wasn’t at the cabana and her testimony is speculative, not relevant or proportional | Magistrate’s denial without prejudice upheld; Plaintiff must first depose Elbadramany to show Fahim’s relevance |
| Request for firm case-management protocol | Discovery is proceeding too slowly; no depositions have occurred so court should impose firm schedule | Magistrate’s existing management is proper; Plaintiff’s objections misuse the review standard | Denial of a special protocol upheld; Plaintiff failed to show clear error or law violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dees v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Ala., LLC, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (district court reverses magistrate only for abuse of discretion absent legal error)
- S.E.C. v. Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (order is contrary to law if it misapplies statutes or procedural rules)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery relevance is construed broadly to include matters that could lead to admissible evidence)