Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
PHILLIPS v. CITY OF NEW YORK
August 12, 2005.
ANTONIA PHILLIPS Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge
By Order dated June 27, 2005, Magistrate Judge Francis denied
in part the request of defendants Catholic Home Bureau and Marina
Seda (collectively, "CHB") for the Court to direct defendant City
of New York to provide additional information with respect to
CHB's interrogatories, ordering only that the City "set forth any
evidence on which they intend to rely to prove CHB's liability
that was not previously disclosed in discovery." (Endorsement,
Letter from Glen Feinberg to Magistrate Judge Francis, dated June
27, 2005, at 3.) On June 30, 2005, CHB filed an objection before
this Court to Magistrate Judge Francis's June 27 Order. CHB
requests that this Court set aside the June 27 Order and order
the City to comply with CHB's earlier stated request for
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
"[w]ithin 10 days after being served with a copy if the
magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections
to the order. . . . The district judge to whom the case is
assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R. Civ.
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Francis's June 27 Order
and has considered CHB's objections thereto. On this basis, the
Court does not find the Order to be either clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. See Weiss v. La Suisse, 161 F. Supp. 2d 305,
321 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("A magistrate judge's resolution of
discovery disputes deserves substantial deference."). The Court
reads the Magistrate Judge's ruling as in fact directing
disclosure of the discovery at issue, but qualifying the
obligation to apply to material to the extent "not previously
disclosed in discovery." CHB objects to this order, not because
they fear that information will not be disclosed, but because
they do not want to have to hunt through the record to find the
evidence themselves. The court finds no basis in law to support a
determination that detailed disclosure of defendant's theory of
their cross-claim in the form CHB requests by way of contention
interrogatories is compelled by the Federal Rules or any
applicable law. See Breeland v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co.,
26 F.R.D. 119, 120 (E.D.N.Y. 1960) ("A litigant may not compel his
adversary to go to work for him." (quoting Aktiebolaget Vargos
v. Clark, 8 F.R.D. 635, 636 (D.D.C. 1949)); cf. United
Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp v. Philip Morris, Inc., 21 F.R.D. 107,
109 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) ("I do not believe that discovery proceedings
should be utilized to cast upon a defendant the burden of
establishing the plaintiff's case when the plaintiff can at least as readily
establish the requested facts.").
ORDERED that the Defendants' Objection to the June 27, 2005
Memo Endorsed Order of Magistrate Judge Francis IV is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For