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.

Mark Gelfman and Yanis Gelfman v. Capitol Indemnity Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


May 16, 2012

MARK GELFMAN AND YANIS GELFMAN, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Having reviewed defendants' May 11th letter-motion for a hearing regarding an extension of discovery previously granted by the Court, see Letter Motion for Hearing (May 11, 2012), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") # 51, as well as pro se plaintiffs' May 14th letter disputing the facts recounted in defendants' letter, see Letter dated 5/14/12 from Yanis Gelfman (docketed May 15, 2012) ("Pl. Letter"), DE #52, the Court adheres to its May 4th order extending fact discovery until June 29, 2012. See Endorsed Order (May 4, 2012) ("May 4th Order"), DE #50. Even though plaintiffs now contend that their consent to the extension was based on the (allegedly mistaken) assumption that defendants would engage in good faith negotiations to settle the case or at least resolve the parties' discovery disputes, see Pl. Letter at 2, 3, the Court nevertheless finds that the scheduling difficulties cited by defendants in support of their application for an extension provided good cause for the Court's May 4th Order. See generally Letter Motion for Extension of Time (May 4, 2012) at 2-3, DE #49. Therefore, the Court declines to alter the June 29th fact discovery deadline.

The additional time granted by the Court to complete fact discovery was intended to afford the parties sufficient time both to complete depositions and to engage in good faith negotiations aimed at settling the case or at least avoiding motions practice over discovery issues; it was not intended to afford the parties more time to serve new demands or to present expanded discovery disputes to the Court. The Court is troubled by plaintiffs' allegations that defendants have not engaged in the good faith discussions envisioned by the Court in issuing its May 4th Order. Defendants are directed to promptly confer in good faith with plaintiffs in an effort to resolve this litigation and resolve or narrow the parties' discovery disputes.

Defendants' request for a hearing is denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20120516

© 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.