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.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Viviane Etienne

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 19, 2011

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIVIANE ETIENNE, M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Berardi defendants have written to Judge Townes, seeking leave to move to strike plaintiff's medical expert reports. See Letter to the Court (Sept. 16, 2011) ("Def. Letter"), ECF Docket Entry ("DE") #247. Among other things, the Berardi defendants complain that plaintiff's four expert reports "rely on a sampling of undisclosed records from various medical providers," id. at 1, that defendants have not been provided with copies of these records, id., and that "it appears questionable that some of the data relied on by Plaintiff's experts can even be exchanged without violating HIPAA regulations." Id. at 2.

All of the aforesaid issues were previously addressed by this Court: In a Memorandum and Order dated August 19, 2011, the undersigned magistrate judge denied a virtually identical motion by the Berardi defendants, on the ground that the defense had failed to confer with plaintiff in a good faith effort to obtain the undisclosed records. See Memorandum and Order (Aug. 19, 2011) ("M&O") at 1-2, D.E. #246.*fn1 In the intervening one-month period, the Berardi defendants apparently have done nothing to comply with their obligations to meet and confer with plaintiff on these discovery issues; instead, defendants seek to circumvent those obligations by asserting that their previous request "was mischaracterized as a discovery motion." Def. Letter at 2. Defendants' prior application was in fact a discovery motion, see Affirmation in Support of Motion (Aug. 19, 2011) ¶ 3, D.E. #245 (seeking either a preclusion order or a compulsion order), and no amount of verbal sleight-of-hand will change the essential nature of their request. As defendants persist in their failure to comply with their obligations under the local and federal rules, their application is again denied. See M&O at 1-2.

Defendants' belated request to stay discovery is likewise denied. There is no discovery to stay: the deadlines for serving expert disclosure have expired, and the period for conducting expert depositions ended on September 15, 2011. See Minute Entry (May 18, 2011), D.E. #241 (defendants' expert disclosure was due on August 19, 2011).

Finally, the parties are reminded of the September 21st deadline for requesting a premotion conference before Judge Townes on any dispositive motion. See id.

SO ORDERED.

ROANNE L. MANN 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.