ELECTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Filing 150

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 146 Report and Recommendations; that Defendant shall submit a Supplemental Affidavit which provides that all responsive discovery has been served no later than June 4, 2012; and that Plaintiff sha ll submit a Supplemental Affidavit, no later than June 8, 2012, stating with precision the specific prejudice, if any, resulting from Defendants failure to comply with its discovery obligations by the March 25, 2011 deadline.. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 5/30/12. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ELECTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, a/s/o
STEVEN BERINGER and PATRICIA
BERINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.
Civil No. 09-3792 (FSH) (MAS)
ORDER

Date: May 30, 2012

HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter having come before the Court upon the Report & Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Shipp (Docket # 146) which recommends that this Court “require Defendant to
submit a Supplemental Affidavit which provides that all responsive discovery has been served;”
and “[t]o the extent Plaintiff claims specific prejudice that cannot be remedied absent sanctions,
the Court should permit Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s in limine motions, in part, on the basis
that Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders by the March 25, 2011
deadline;” and neither party having filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation;1 and
this Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation; and good cause appearing;

1

Defendant submitted a letter to Judge Shipp on May 23, 2012 (Docket # 148) requesting that
His Honor “reconsider [his] recommendation to [the Undersigned] concerning possible sanctions
for discovery violations as [his] current Report and Recommendations suggests.” The Court
does not consider this submission to be a formal objection to Judge Shipp’s Report and
Recommendation since that Report and Recommendation expressly “does not recommend Rule
37 sanctions at this point of the litigation.” May 9, 2012 Report and Recommendation at 8.
1

IT IS on this 30th day of May, 2012,
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shipp is
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall submit a Supplemental Affidavit
which provides that all responsive discovery has been served no later than June 4, 2012; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a Supplemental Affidavit, no
later than June 8, 2012, stating with precision the specific prejudice, if any, resulting from
Defendant’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations by the March 25, 2011 deadline.

/s/ Faith S. Hochberg
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

2