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.

Bruno v. State University of New York At Stony Brook

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 27, 2006

DANIELLE BRUNO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is the defendants' letter application dated December 21, 2006, seeking to compel the plaintiff to amend her portion of the joint pretrial order setting forth a more specific list of exhibits. The defendants also seek to compel the plaintiff to provide them with an updated authorization to release her medical records for a recent hospitalization. The plaintiff opposes the motion by letter dated December 22, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' application is granted.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff's proposed exhibit list, which includes several composite exhibits, undermines the purpose of the pretrial order process. The court agrees. The exhibit list contains several references to large groupings of documents. In fact, Plaintiff's Exhibits 10-24 are all the "legal documents produced during discovery," several of which contain thousands of pages of documents. In order for the defendants to comply with the District Judge's individual rules, which require them to indicate the exhibits to which they have no objection to on the grounds of authenticity or otherwise, the plaintiff must identify every document she intends to offer in evidence individually. Moreover, the plaintiff has not explained why she believes the defendants' legal responses have separate evidentiary value. Accordingly, the plaintiff must serve the defendants with a revised exhibit list on or before January 3, 2007. The parties are directed to electronically file the proposed joint pretrial order by January 10, 2007.

In addition, on or before January 3, 2007, the plaintiff is to provide the defendants with an updated medical authorization. Although the plaintiff is correct that discovery has closed, it appears that a request for an authorization to release medical records from Stony Brook University Hospital was previously demanded. While the demand may not have been specific enough to cover the most recent hospitalization, the court believes that the request for the updated records is warranted.

SO ORDERED:

ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY United States Magistrate Judge

20061227

© 1992-2006 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.