Court Confirms JHO Report Recommending Protective Order, Rejecting Argument That Referee Exceeded Scope of Reference

Posted: July 15, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Discovery/Disclosure, Motion to Compel, Court Rules/Procedures

Court Confirms JHO Report Recommending Protective Order, Rejecting Argument That Referee Exceeded Scope of Reference

On May 11, 2026, in Morgan v. St Mark's World Acquisition LLC, Index No. 651186/2021, Justice Andrea Masley denied plaintiff's motion to reject a Judicial Hearing Officer's report and recommendation and confirmed the report in its entirety.

The court had referred defendants' motion for a protective order limiting plaintiff's document demands to a JHO, who was supervising discovery, to hear and report. The JHO recommended that the court grant the protective order and deny plaintiff's cross motion to compel, finding that plaintiff's demands exceeded the scope of the central issues in the case. Plaintiff moved to reject the report, arguing that the JHO had improperly “determined” the motion rather than merely hearing and reporting, had failed to address the required issues, and had exceeded the 30-day period for a referee to submit a report. The court rejected each argument. It explained that plaintiff conflated the resolution of an issue by the court with the procedural distinction between a reference to hear and report and a reference to hear and determine, and that a JHO on a reference to report functions as an aid to the court. The court further found the report timely because the 30-day period runs from final submission, and the report was issued within a week of that submission. On the merits, the court explained:

Upon review of the documents submitted by the parties in support of motion sequence 007, the court finds that JHO Ramos's report is supported and based on the record. Plaintiff requested the following documents which are facially beyond the scope of the central issues . . . . Therefore, the court rejects plaintiff's argument that JHO Ramos failed to address the required issues.

Confirming the report, the court granted defendants' motion for a protective order in its entirety and denied plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP have extensive experience litigating discovery disputes, including motions for protective orders, in complex commercial matters. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.