Harris v. Middleton

Filing 73

Minute Order for Discovery and Motion hearing held before Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go on 1/13/10 granting in large part motion to compel 69 .granting in part and denying in part [69. Appearances by Richard Wright for plaintiffs; Paul Golden for d efendant. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant to produce discovery responses is granted to the extent stated. As set forth in the minute order attached, defendant must immediately provide the authorizat ions sought and supplement her discovery responses by 2/3/10. Defendant is warned that she will be precluded from presenting any future evidence that should have been disclosed. Fact discovery is closed except as to enforcement of any discovery req uests made to date and ordered by the Court. The deadlines for expert disclosures and reports are extended as follows: plaintiffs must serve disclosures and report from their handwriting expert by 3/1/10 and defendant rebuttal expert report and disc losures are due 4/1/10; other affirmative expert reports and disclosures (plaintiffs' real estate expert and defendant's mental health expert) must be served by 1/29/10 and rebuttal disclosures and reports served by 3/1/10. Subject to furt her notice by the Court, the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for appointment of a receiver shall begin on February 24, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. and continued to February 26, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. and March 3, 2010, if necessary. (Tape #FTR 10:09-10:53 and ESR B 09/40 5792 to B 09/41 2125.) (DeVeaux, Yvonne)

MINUTE ORDER Beare, as Executrix v. Millington, 07cv3391 (ERK)(MDG) This order recapitulates the rulings made on the record at a conference on January 13, 2009 regarding plaintiffs' motion to compel [69] which is largely granted as follows. 1. As previously ordered by the Court, defendant must immediately provide medical authorizations for full medical records for 1/1/09 to present and provide by 2/3/09 contact information for the landscaping company she employed to work on the property at issue. 2. Defendant must also immediately provide authorizations for her academic and employment records from Temple University's dental school as requested in document request numbers 7-9, but excluding any records pertaining to any litigation between defendant and other parties. 3. As to plaintiffs' document request numbers 1-6 and 10-21 and interrogatory numbers 2 and 5-16, defendant shall supplement her responses by 2/3/10. To the extent that defendant is relying on documents that were previously disclosed pursuant to informal settlement discussions, that production does not relieve her of her obligation to respond to plaintiff's formal discovery requests. The defendant is warned that she will be precluded from offering evidence in this action that she has failed to produce in discovery or that is closely related to information she has failed to disclose. For example, since defendant responded that she does not know the name and address of Rudy Headley's home improvement business, she will be precluded from offering Mr. Headley's testimony regarding renovations he performed on the decedent's property. However, plaintiffs shall not be precluded from challenging defendant's failure to produce such information to the extent relevant. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 14, 2010 /s/ MARILYN D. GO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE