Weiss et al v. National Westminster Bank

Filing 248

Minute entry and order for motion hearing held on 9/15/11. Appearances by Joshua Glatter and Aaron Schlanger for Weiss plaintiffs and Joel Israel for Applebaum plaintiffs; Lawrence Friedman and Avi Luft for defendant. Argument heard and rulings mad e on the record as summarized in an attached minute order granting cross-motions to compel answers to contention interrogatories 243 , 247 and plaintiff's motion to compel documents 245 . Parties must supplement their interrogatory responses by 10/13/11. Defendants pre-motion letter must be served by 9/28/11 and plaintiffs response by 10/7/11. (Tape #FTR 2:11-3:45 and ESR B11/22 5862 - B11/23 6223.) Associated Cases: 1:05-cv-04622-DLI-MDG, 1:07-cv-00916-DLI-MDG(Proujansky, Josh)

MINUTE ORDER
Weiss, et al. v. National Westminster, 05-cv-4622 (DLI)(MDG)
This order summarizes rulings made on the record during a conference
held on 9/15/11.
1. With respect to defendant’s [243] motion to compel interrogatory
responses, plaintiffs’ objections on grounds of relevance are
overruled and the motion is granted as follows:
a.

b.

plaintiffs must provide a response to interrogatory 18;

c.

plaintiffs must provide a more specific response to
interrogatory 20 which may be similar to its response to
interrogatory 1. For example, plaintiffs need not
identify each transfer that they claim violated 18 U.S.C.
§ 2339B and/or 18 U.S.C. § 2339C.

d.

2.

plaintiffs must provide a more specific response to
interrogatory 17 subject to any objections they deem
appropriate as to the limits of their knowledge on the
subject. Plaintiffs may provide separate responses as to
what information UK law enforcement agencies had in their
possession and what information they could have requested
from Interpal;

plaintiffs must provide a response to interrogatory 24
without distinguishing between their contentions during
their case-in-chief as opposed to on rebuttal.

Plaintiffs’ [247] motion to compel interrogatory responses is
granted to the following extent:
a.

3.

defendant must continue to search the Goalkeeper system
for information responsive to interrogatory 22.

With respect to plaintiffs’ [245] motion to compel documents,
defendant must produce the two disclosures identified in its
motion to compel. This Court’s prior ruling setting a limit on
the temporal scope of defendant’s production was based on
concerns of burden which are not implicated with respect to
these documents. Plaintiffs may renew their request for
additional documents related to the disclosures after they have
reviewed the disclosures themselves.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
September 16, 2011
/s/
MARILYN D. GO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE