United States District Court, S.D. New York
December 31, 2003.
MOONSTRUCK DESIGN, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- RAYMOND D. METZ, et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, Senior District Judge
By letter dated December 3, 2003, plaintiff Moonstruck Design, L.L.C.
("Moonstruck") requests that the Court strike defendants' answers and
defenses and award plaintiff attorneys' fees for discovery violations.
Moonstruck alleges that defendants have not answered its discovery
requests or made themselves available for depositions. In particular,
Moonstruck argues that defendants cancelled a deposition scheduled for
November 5, 2003, and have not rescheduled.
In response, defendants state that they are willing and able to go
forward with the depositions, but that Moonstruck's counsel has not
sought to reschedule the depositions. Defendants have not responded to
Moonstruck's allegations that it has not answered its discovery requests. While Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does authorize an
order striking answers and defenses, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) (2)(C), such
measures are "extreme sanctions, to be deployed only in rare situations."
Burke v. ITT Automotive, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 24, 31 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) (quoting
Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Picture Corp.,
602 F.2d 1062, 1064 (2d Cir. 1979)). Under the circumstances described by
Moonstruck, no sanctions are warranted.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.