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.

Caplan v. SJM Asset Management Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


August 8, 2007

ELYA CAPLAN, ETC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
SJM ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIKTOR V. Pohorelsky United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

By letter dated July 24, 2007, judicial intervention is sought regarding disputed interrogatories and document requests served by SJM Asset Management Corp. on their co-defendants. The co-defendants have responded by letter dated July 27, 2007. Based on the submissions the court makes the following rulings:

Interrogatory 2: The information sought concerning the identities and addresses of owners, officers and employees of the corporate co-defendants is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The co-defendants shall therefore serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory providing that information. The court has no explanation why information concerning their "interests" in the corporations is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and therefore that information need not be provided; Interrogatory 5, Document Demands 1, 2, and 7: The objection based on relevance is sustained as no showing has been made how any of the information requested is relevant or reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. Id.

Interrogatory 7: the co-defendants shall serve a supplemental response to this interrogatory which provides information concerning the present location of the business property identified in the interrogatory; Document Demand 5: Neither SJM nor the co-defendants provided the court with the substance of the information requested and the court is therefore unable to rule.

The court rejects the co-defendants' argument that discovery should not be permitted with respect to "patently insubstantial" cross-claims. Had the co-defendants acted more promptly to press that attack on the cross-claims by making a motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, the argument might have found a more sympathetic ear. Now, however, well past the midway point in the discovery period, the court is loathe to stay discovery while the co-defendants seek to make a motion for judgment on the pleadings addressed to the cross-claims.

The supplemental interrogatory responses shall be served within ten days.

SO ORDERED.

20070808

© 1992-2007 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.