Opinion
No. 01-CV-8227 (NG) (VVP).
July 23, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff trustees object to Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky's May 28, 2004 Report and Recommendation, which proposes that the court award a judgment of $2,765.42, on the ground that the Report recommends fewer damages than plaintiffs feel they are owed.
In their objection, dated June 24, 2004, plaintiffs state that they will submit a supplemental affidavit and/or additional documents supporting their position "shortly." The court has not received any such papers. However, even if a supplemental affidavit had been filed within the time for objections to Judge Pohorelsky's Report and Recommendation, I would not consider it. Judge Pohorelsky appropriately and carefully scrutinized the record in issuing his Report and Recommendation. Considerations of efficiency and fairness militate in favor of a full evidentiary submission for the Magistrate Judge's consideration and it is within my discretion to refuse to allow supplementation of the record upon my de novo review. See Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653, 656 (2d Cir. 1998). Proceedings before the magistrate judge are not a trial run, after which litigants should feel free to add "to the record in bits and pieces depending upon the rulings or recommendation they receive." Id. (quoting Wallace v. Tilley, 41 F.3d 296, 302 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Judge Pohorelsky and plaintiffs' objections thereto, I reject plaintiffs' objections and adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiffs are awarded damages and costs against defendants in the amount of $2765.42, consisting of $217.13 in unpaid ERISA contributions; $317.65 in interest through May 28, 2004; $325.64 in liquidated damages; and $1905 in attorneys fees' and costs. Additionally, plaintiffs are awarded $.33 per day in interest for each day from May 29, 2004 to the date of judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment for plaintiff in accordance with this order.