United States District Court, S.D. New York
October 13, 2005.
GEORGE PIECZENIK, Plaintiff,
PFIZER, INC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD ELLIS, Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 8, 2005, plaintiff George Pieczenik filed a motion to
limit depositions to three months; appoint a panel of three
lawyers experienced in Pieczenik's prior patent litigation to act
as counsel to the undersigned; and to consent to jurisdiction
over dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B).
Pieczenik's motion is hereby DENIED.
Following a conference with the Court on May 10, 2005, the
parties were ordered to complete discovery by November 14, 2005.
Order, dated May 10, 2005, ECF Doc. No. 13. Since the Court has
already ruled on the length of the discovery period, the part of
the motion seeking to limit depositions to three months is
DENIED as moot.
Pieczenik's request to appoint a panel of three lawyers
experienced in his prior patent litigation to act as advisors to
the Court is not supported by the record. Pieczenik asks the
Court to engage these lawyers to help determine "claim
construction and infringement." Pieczenik's Motion to Limit
Depositions at 2. He has presented no special circumstances to
justify this action. Courts are competent to make these factual
and legal determinations. The motion is DENIED.
On September 7, 2004, Judge Kaplan referred this case to the
undersigned for dispositive motions. Pieczenik's purported
consent for this Court to have jurisdiction over dispositive
motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) is DENIED as
Pieczenik's motion to limit depositions to three months;
appoint a panel of lawyers; and to consent to jurisdiction over
dispositive motions is hereby DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.