United States District Court, E.D. New York
August 25, 2005.
GEORGE BOYCE, Plaintiff(s). ALLIED INTERSTATE, et al., Defendant(s).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM D. WALL, Magistrate Judge
Before the court are the plaintiff's motion for a protective
order and the defendant's cross motion to compel. The underlying
issue is production of an audio tape of a telephone conversation
between the plaintiff and a representative of the defendant,
recorded prior to the start of the litigation. The plaintiff
seeks an order permitting him to turn over the tape after the
defendant's deposition, and the defendant seeks an order
compelling immediate production of the tape as part of initial
disclosure. The plaintiff's order is granted and the defendant's
cross motion is denied as moot.
The plaintiff has not refused to produce the tape, but merely
seeks to control the timing of the production. This court agrees
with the reasoning in Poppo v. AON Risk Servs., 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17588 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), and with the ruling entered by
Magistrate Judge J. Orenstein in CV 04-5410, and grants the
plaintiff's motion for a protective order allowing him to
withhold production of the tape until the completion of the
The parties are advised that any letters seeking court
intervention must, in the future, be docketed as letter motions,
not simply as letters, or they will be rejected.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.