--Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction "enjoining [defendants] from continuing to prohibit 'A Chat with Glendora' from Channel 8 every Tuesday, 9 p.m., and from restoring Channel 8 to what it was April 30, 1996," Plaintiff's Notice of Motion at 2-3, would have been denied, both because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of this case, for the reasons articulated above, and also because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm. Cf. Glendora v. Malone, 911 F. Supp. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying plaintiff's prior motion for preliminary injunction).
--Plaintiff's motion that defendants are in default for failure to appear would fail because Ben Wiles, Esq. has defended the case within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 55(a) on behalf of all defendants from the commencement of this action until its dismissal on the date hereof.
--Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the decision of Judge Conner to grant defendants' prior motion for improper joinder of certain defendants in this case, see Glendora v. Malone, 917 F. Supp. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), would fail because it is not supported by additional evidence to suggest that those defendants belong in this action and therefore affords no reason for disturbing the law of the case.
--Plaintiff's motion to add as defendants various directors and officers of defendant TCI Cable and its parent company TCI Communications, namely Jerome H. Kern, R.E. Turner, Fred A. Vierra, Stephen M. Brett, Peter R. Barton, Larry E. Romrell, Gary K. Bracken, Bernard W. Schotters, and J.C. Sparkman, would likewise fail, as these putative defendants fall into the same category as those defendants that Judge Conner ruled misjoined in his prior decision.
By contrast, those of plaintiff's motions that appear to have merit, and the reasons why they would have been granted, are as follows:
--Plaintiff's request for defendants to provide her with a list of the individual defendants' home addresses, as required by Local Rule 2 of the Southern District of New York, should have been complied with pursuant to Judge Conner's Order of February 26, 1996, Glendora, 917 F. Supp. at 230. The Court disagrees with the suggestion made at oral argument that there is any material evidence that Glendora is a physical threat to those defendants. The Court notes, however, that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendants' failure to comply with the Court order, since, throughout this litigation, plaintiff has successfully communicated with the opposing parties through their designated counsel, and there was no harm to plaintiff's case resulting from deprivation of the information sought.
--Plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce transcripts of the depositions taken of plaintiff and her husband, Franklyn Buell, would, in the discretion of the Court, likely have been granted.
--Finally, defendants' motion seeking discovery with respect to Glendora's in forma pauperis status in this case would have been denied.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Complaint is hereby dismissed. Clerk to enter judgment.
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Dated: White Plains, New York
November 12, 1996