Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CARAVEO v. NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


April 24, 2003

ENRIQUE CARAVEG, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Ellis, United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
To the HONORABLE LEONARD B. SAND, U.S.D.J.:

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 31, 2002, pro se plaintiff Enrique Caraveo ("Caraveo") filed a complaint against twenty-five defendants for a wide-range of claims stemming from his employment with defendant Nielsen Media Research, Inc. ("NMR"). On January 27, 2003, Caraveo filed a motion for default judgment against NMR. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that Caraveo' s motion for default judgment be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II. BACKGROUND

The pertinent facts are set out in my Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2003. For purposes of this motion, it should be noted that Ralph Flores ("Flores"), Gail Heneghan ("Heneghan") and David Schueller ("Schueller") are named defendants. Both Heneghan and Schueller have answered the complaint through counsel for MetLife. NMR listed Flores in their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and noted that he could "be contacted through the undersigned counsel." On February 6, 2003, the Court had a conference with the parties, at which Caraveo indicated that he intended to file a motion for default judgment against defendant MetLife as well. Upon further inquiry, Caraveo indicated that he needed the addresses requested of both NMR and MetLife to serve more named defendants. The Court ordered that Caraveo submit a clarification as to why these named defendants should be party to his suit.

III. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1)(A) notes that initial disclosures should include:

the name, and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the information.
Caraveo seeks to use this rule to obtain addresses to serve additional defendants. The Court finds this an improper use of the rule. The Advisory Notes to this subdivision of Rule 26 note that its purpose is to "assist other parties in deciding which depositions will actually be needed." FED.R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) Advisory Committee's Note (1993). To the extent that NMR or MetLife does not produce the individual defendants for depositions and other fact gathering purposes, Caraveo may seek appropriate relief from the Court. Heneghan and Schueller have already interposed an answer, and therefore, may only be contacted by Caraveo through their attorney. Caraveo has no need for their addresses. With respect to Flores, NMR would of course be expected to make him available for deposing on reasonable terms. Unless the corporate defendants fail to produce these witnesses for discovery purposes, the personal addresses should not be disclosed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Caraveo' s motion for default judgment be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on all adversaries, with extra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Leonard B. Sand, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1650, and to the chambers of the undersigned, Room 1970. Failure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (West Supp. 1995); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e).

20030424

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.