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.

DePhillips v. Town of Riverhead

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


October 5, 2006

JUDITH ANN DEPHILLIPS, PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, TOWN OF RIVERHEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT, SERGEANT JOHN VAIL, OFFICER TIMIOTHY MCALLISTER, AND OFFICER RAYMOND BROGAN, DEFENDANT(S).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: William D. Wall, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court are (1) the defendants' motion for reconsideration of the court's order dated September 13, 2006 and (2) the plaintiff's motion for sanctions. For the reasons set forth herein, the defendants' motion is granted and the plaintiff's motion is denied. The order of September 13 [DE#48] is vacated.

On September 13, the undersigned granted plaintiff's pending discovery motion as unopposed, and imposed sanctions of $500 on defendants for their failure to appear at the conference on that date. The rulings were set forth in a civil conference sheet order form, which was immediately docketed as entry number 48. After the conference concluded, defense counsel appeared, and reported that the time of the conference had apparently been mis-calendared in his office and that he believed he could enter his opposition to the motion orally at the conference. Because the order had already been docketed, the court told counsel he would have to make a motion for reconsideration. He did so, and the court now grants that order. The documents sought by the plaintiff have already been produced or do not exist or are not in the possession of the defendants, and thus cannot be produced. Moreover, the court accepts defense counsel's explanation for his tardy appearance. Counsel is once again warned, however, that letter motions must be timely opposed in writing, or they will be granted as unopposed. The order of September 13 is vacated.

The plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37, claiming that the defendants have not complied with orders of this court*fn1 . The defendants charge that the motion is disengenuous and that none of the discovery abuses the plaintiff describes are accurate representations of the true history of discovery in this matter. The court accepts the defendants' version of the facts. The plaintiff may not like the fact that some of what she seeks is not available for production, but that does not warrant the imposition of sanctions on the defendants.

SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM D. WALL United States Magistrate Judge


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.