OPINION AND ORDER Shmuel Stollman (“Shmuel”) and Elisa Stollman, individually and on behalf of their children E.S. and L.S., have sued the City of New York and various individual City employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York law. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ actions in a child abuse investigation and resulting family court proceedings against Shmuel violated their civil rights. During discovery, Plaintiffs subpoenaed third party Safe Horizon, Inc., which operates a facility where E.S. was interviewed, seeking records related to E.S.’s visit. Safe Horizon objected to the subpoena and the Honorable Kevin Nathaniel Fox, to whom this case was referred for general pretrial supervision, denied Plaintiffs’ subsequent motion to compel production of the materials and to hold Safe Horizon in contempt for non-compliance with the subpoena. Plaintiffs objected to the Magistrate Judge Fox’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Dkt. 83 (“Objection”). For reasons that follow, the Court sustains the Objection in part, and grants the motion to compel and denies the contempt motion. I. Background A. Facts 1. Plaintiffs’ Allegations The Court begins by summarizing Plaintiffs’ allegations as context for this discovery dispute. The allegations that follow are assumed true only for purposes of resolving Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and for sanctions. E.S., who was born in 2003, is alleged to be “profoundly handicapped,” “suffer[ing] from a severe cognitive impairment.” Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”)
17-18. In 2017, when she was fourteen years old, E.S. “had the intellectual ability and emotional maturity of a 2-year-old child.” Id. 18. At that time, E.S. could not speak, count, dress herself, use the toilet, or follow instructions, and she knew only a few words and a “limited number of gestures.” Id.
