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.

MOONSTRUCK DESIGN, LLC v. METZ

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

20031231

© 1992-2004 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.