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.

Jillian John v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


May 2, 2012

JILLIAN JOHN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KINGSBROOK JEWISH MEDICAL
CENTER / RUTLAND NURSING HOME, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I deny the plaintiff's motion to compel the production of further information about "official," oral, and written complaints made about her. See Docket Entry ("DE") 53. I heard the parties' arguments on the plaintiff's requests for such information, among other requests, at a conference on February 2, 2012, and ruled that the defendant's responses had been sufficient. See DE 22 (transcript) at 24. However, I provided the plaintiff with a further opportunity to raise the matter: "If you think that there's no sufficient information there, I think what you should do is send me copies of what they provided in response and why you think that doesn't answer the questions. Then I'll get a response from [the defendant's counsel] and we'll take it from there[.]" Id. In her latest motion, the plaintiff writes only that she is "dissatisfied" with the defendant's production because "she believes that all of the information requested was/is important to her in proving her case." DE 53 at 1. The plaintiff provides no further explanation as to why the information the defendant has produced to date concerning complaints against her is insufficient. I therefore adhere to my earlier ruling.

To the extent the defendant's response to the motion to compel includes several new requests for relief on the defendant's behalf, see DE 54 at 1-4, I deny the requests without prejudice to the defendant's right to file a motion for such affirmative discovery relief as it deems appropriate. Any such motion should be styled as such on the docket, and should, with respect to each request for relief, comply with Rule III.A.1 of my individual practice requirements. The plaintiff shall respond in writing to any such new motion within three business days of its filing.

I respectfully direct the defendant to provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to file proof of such service on the docket.

JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

20120502

© 1992-2012 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.