United States District Court, Southern District of New York
April 10, 2003
DERRICK HAMILTON, PLAINTIFF AGAINST BERNARD B. KERIK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Henry Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
I write to resolve several discovery and procedural issues that have been raised in the parties' correspondence.
First, by notice of motion dated December 12, 2002, which apparently was never filed with the Clerk of the Court, plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to correct the date referenced in paragraph 24 of his complaint from October 6, 1999 to October 7, 1999 and to correct the date referenced in paragraph 25 from November 17, 1999 to November 19, 1999. Defendants oppose plaintiff's application, claiming that it is both untimely and prejudicial. Defendants do not, however, explain how they will be prejudiced. Although plaintiff's motion is untimely, the proposed changes at issue are extremely narrow and there appears to be no prejudice to defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff's application to amend his complaint is granted. Rather than go through another round of formal pleading, I conclude the most expeditious procedure is simply to deem paragraph 24 of the complaint to be amended to refer to October 7, 1999 instead of October 6, 1999 and to deem paragraph 25 of the complaint to be amended to refer to November 19, 1999 instead of November 17, 1999.
Second, plaintiff claims that defendants have not timely complied with my December 10, 2002 Order directing defendants to make certain discovery. It appears that plaintiff's letter claiming that defendants failed to make discovery crossed defendants' production in the mail. Unless I hear further from plaintiff concerning this matter, I shall consider the matter resolved.
Third, plaintiff seeks to adjourn defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment due to putative deficiencies in discovery. It is not clear to me that the claimed deficiencies should delay resolution of the dispositive motions. I believe a more efficient course is to resolve both sides' summary judgment motions, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to assert that defendants' motion should be denied pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, copies of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), and my Report and Recommendation in Weltz v. City of New York, et al., 99 Civ. 3932 (RCC), which discusses the requirements of Rule 56(f) at pages 44-50, are being sent to plaintiff and counsel for defendants with a copy of this Order. Plaintiff is directed to serve and file his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment no later than May 12, 2003.
Fourth, plaintiff's application to compel defendants to provide further information concerning the names of inmates who may have witnessed the events alleged in the complaint is denied. By letter dated February 13, 2003, defendants' counsel explains in detail how defendants have provided all such information in their possession. In the absence of specific information suggesting or showing that the representations in counsel's letter are untrue, defendants have fully complied with their discovery obligation in this regard.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.