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.

OS RECOVERY INC. v. ONE GROUPE INTERNATIONAL INC.

United States District Court, S.D. New York


June 1, 2004.

OS RECOVERY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, -against- ONE GROUPE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

In what long has been par for the course in this litigation, counsel again are unable to conduct discovery in a reasonable fashion without extensive court involvement. One say writes a letter complaining of discovery failures by the other. The accused party respond by attacking the writer of the first letter for failure to make discovery in response to requests by the accused party and claiming that the first letter is shot through with falsehoods and half-truths. This provokes a reply. And rarely does anyone come to grips with the merits of the discovery disputes.

The latest round began with a letter dated May 20, 2004 from counsel for defendant Parex Bank. The issues raised therein are disposed of as follows:

  1. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Parex shall take place in Stockholm, Sweden, or such other location as the parties may agree upon in writing.

  2. The "Doe" plaintiffs' objections to Parex's First Set of Interrogatories to and First Request for Production of Documents by them are largely frivolous. For example,

a. They object to discovery "to the extent that [it] request[s] information, the disclosure of which would violate the privacy rights of individuals, confidentiality agreements, arrangements or understandings between Plaintiffs and any other person . . ." But there has been no showing that any of the requested discovery would do so, much less that this would be a legally sufficient basis for objection even if it did.
b. They raise privilege objections without complying with S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 26.2. c. The raise burden and vagueness objections without making any showing of burden or articulating any ambiguities.
d. They offer to answer certain interrogatories, in part, only following the entry of a confidentiality order limiting disclosure of information to counsel of record. But they ignore the fact that they entered into a stipulated confidentiality order that was approved by the Court on February 25, 2003. While that order allows disclosure of confidential information beyond counsel of record, there has been no showing that the protection it affords would be inadequate or that plaintiffs made any effort to work out more extensive protection with Parex.
e. They are replete with relevancy objections, but no serious effort has been made to substantiate those objections.
Although the conclusion is unnecessary to the result, these and other examples that might be cited convincingly demonstrate that plaintiffs have interposed these objections for the purpose of delay

  Accordingly, all of the objections are overruled. The Doe plaintiffs shall answer all interrogatories propounded to them, under oath, and produce all responsive documents on or before July 6, 2004.

  3. The Court will not tolerate further obstructionism by any party. Any failure to comply with this or any other order of this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions, which may be case dispositive.

  SO ORDERED.

20040601

© 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.