UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
November 28, 2007
SAID GSSIME, PLAINTIFF,
MR. CADIAN, D.S.S.; C.O. PIZZOTTO, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gustave J. DI Bianco, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Said Gssime has filed a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 21. By his motion, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to respond to his Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
Plaintiff states that he served discovery requests on defendants' counsel or about March 2, 2007. Dkt. No. 21 at 1. A second set of interrogatories was served on April 29, 2007. According to plaintiff, no responses had been provided as of September 19, 2007, when he filed his motion to compel.
Defendants filed papers in opposition to plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 23. In that response, counsel states that responses to plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests were served on plaintiff on November 6, 2007.*fn1 On the basis of those responses, defendants urge that plaintiff's motion to compel be denied as moot. Id.
Plaintiff has not indicated to the Court that he believes that defendants have failed to fully respond to his discovery requests or that the objections stated thereto are not legally sufficient. Moreover, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has reviewed the responses and has determined that defendants substantially complied with plaintiff's discovery requests or stated valid objections thereto. Plaintiff's motion to compel is therefore denied as moot.
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties.