UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
August 16, 2011
LORRAINE PADRO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The parties have jointly filed a proposed motion schedule pursuant to which defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery would "be heard contemporaneously . . . ." Letter from Jim Walden to the Court (Aug. 10, 2011) at 1, ECF Docket Entry ("DE") #13. However, it is apparent from Judge Amon's Minute Entry docketed on August 3, 2011, that she did not contemplate that the two motions would be briefed together. Rather, plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery was to be "raise[d] with" the undersigned magistrate judge, whereas the defendants would proceed with their dispositive motion before the District Court -- albeit on an agreed-upon schedule subject to this Court's approval. See 8/3/11 Minute Entry. That the two motions were not intended to be briefed pursuant to a single schedule is further evidenced by plaintiffs' response to defendant's request for a premotion conference in connection with the latter's anticipated dispositive motion: plaintiffs expressly argued that "the proposed motion [to dismiss] should not be allowed to delay critical discovery going to the merits of this case." Response to Motion for Pre Motion Conference (July 28, 2011), at 1-2, DE #12 (citing case denying defendants' motion to stay discovery during the pendency of dismissal motion). Therefore, it would be illogical to set a schedule that directly ties the motion for expedited discovery to the dismissal motion.
Accordingly, while the Court is prepared to adopt the parties' proposed schedule for briefing defendant's motion to dismiss,*fn1 a separate, tighter schedule will be set for the parties to address plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery. The parties are reminded that before presenting any discovery dispute to the Court, they are required to confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve or at least narrow that dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); SDNY/EDNY Local Civ. R. 37.3(a). To the extent that the parties are unable to resolve completely the issue of expedited discovery, they shall present their positions in letter-briefs pursuant to the following schedule: plaintiffs' submission shall be filed by September 1, 2011; defendant's opposition submission shall be filed by September 8, 2011; plaintiffs' reply is due by September 12, 2011.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE