UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
June 1, 2012
MOHAMMAD AKMAN, PLAINTIFF,
PEP BOYS MANN MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In an application dated May 24, 2012, defendants requested an order compelling plaintiff Mohammad Akman (1) to respond (without objection) to defendant's written discvoery demands (served on April 2, 2012) and (2) to reimburse defendant for the fees and costs incurred in connection with making the May 24th motion. SeeLetter Motion to Compel (May 24, 2012), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry ("DE") #12. In that letter-motion, defendant's counsel recounted his attempts, since May 9, 2012, to communicate with plaintiff's counsel about plaintiff's discovery derelictions, and he represented that plaintiff's counsel had failed to respond to any of defense counsel's communications. See id. at 1.
In light of the aforesaid allegations, this Court endorsed an order on May 24, 2012, directing plaintiff "to show cause, via ECF, by May 29, 2012, why the relief requested should not be granted." Order To Show Cause (May 24, 2012), DE #13. The Court's Order To Show Cause was docketed into the ECFcourt file and was transmitted to plaintiff's counsel's email address. Nevertheless, plaintiff's counsel has ignored the Order To Show Cause and has not responded.
Defendant's motion to compel is therefore granted, to the following extent: Plaintiff must, on pain of sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of his complaint, respond without objection, by June 5, 2012, to all discovery demands served by defendant on April 2, 2012, and must appear for his deposition on June 7, 2012 (or on such other date prior to the conclusion of discovery, but only if agreed to by defendant's counsel). Plaintiff and his counsel are warned that any further violations of court orders and/or of plaintiff's discovery obligations will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions such as fees and costs, as well as a recommendation thatthe complaint be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Defendant's motion for fees and costs is denied without prejudice, pending plaintiff's compliance with this Order.
ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.