Thompson v. Rizzitelli et al

Filing 170

ORDER: granting in part, to the extent that the deposition scheduled for January 17, 2012 is hereby postponed, to be scheduled at a later date pursuant to Court Order 165 Emergency Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 1/12/2012. (Rodko, B.)

Thompson v. Rizzitelli, 10 CV 71 (JBA)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER (Dkt. #165), BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS THAN THOSE RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION.
Familiarity is presumed with the multiple rulings filed in this vastly over-litigated lawsuit
(see, e.g., Dkts. ##25, 40, 52, 67, 72, 74, 118, 120, 133, 146; see also Dkts. ##8, 31, 41, 50,
110, 161 (referring most of this lawsuit suit to this Magistrate Judge)).
Of particular importance to the pending motion is this Magistrate Judge’s Ruling on
Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions, filed December 14, 2011 (Dkt. #146)[“December 2011
Ruling”], which held in pertinent part:
Plaintiff is given one last opportunity to comply with his obligations to
the Court. PLAINTIFF SHALL FORWARD TO DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY EMAIL AND BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, FULL
AND COMPLETE RESPONSES TO ALL DISCOVERY REQUESTS ON OR
BEFORE DECEMBER 22, 2011.
. . . PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO
ATTEND A SECOND DEPOSITION, AT WHICH HE WILL ANSWER FULLY
AND COMPLETELY ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS POSED TO HIM, WITH
SUCH DEPOSITION TO BE HELD ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 20, 2012.
THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER DISCOVERY IN THIS LAWSUIT OTHER
THAN SPECIFIED IN THIS RULING. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THIS RULING, THIS LAWSUIT WILL BE DISMISSED.
(Id. at 5-6)(emphasis in original)(footnote omitted).
Thereafter, the parties filed multiple filings regarding plaintiff’s response to the December
2011 Ruling (see, e.g., Dkts. ##147, 149, 152, 157-58), in addition to which, on December 29,
2011, defendants filed their Motion for Order of Dismissal (Dkt. #151)[“Defendant’s Dismissal
Motion”], in which they allege that plaintiff has failed to comply with the December Ruling;
plaintiff has objected to that motion (Dkt. #163), and the briefing on that motion is not
complete yet as a reply brief, if any, is outstanding.
In plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Order of Protection (Dkt. #165), he objects to this
continued deposition, scheduled for January 17, 2012, as he argues that there is insufficient
cause to hold a second deposition. (Id., Brief at 4-6). Defendant Rizzitelli appropriately argues
in his brief in opposition, filed January 11, 2012 (Dkt. #166), that the second deposition already
was ordered by this Court.1
Because a ruling on defendants’ Dismissal Motion could have a direct bearing on the
scope of the continued deposition, it makes little sense to hold the continued deposition at this
time. Therefore, plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Order of Protection (Dkt. #165) is granted in
part, to the extent that the deposition scheduled for January 17, 2012 is hereby
postponed, to be scheduled at a later date pursuant to Court Order.

1

As such, the “standing” issue raised by plaintiff in his reply brief, filed today (Dkt. #168)
has no merit.