Gortat et al v. Capala Brothers, Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER re 106 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Capala Brothers, Inc.,directing defendants to file a proper opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel no later than March 2, 2009. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold on 2/26/2009. (Gold, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X M IR O S L A W GORTAT, et al., P la intiffs, - against C A P A L A BROTHERS, INC., et al., D efenda nts --------------------------------------------------X G O L D , S., United States Magistrate Judge: B y letter dated February 19, 2009, Docket Entry 105, plaintiffs move to compel discovery. Today, defendants filed a letter, Docket Entry 106, entered on the docket by defendants as their respo nse in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel. See Docket Entry 106. D efenda nts' opposition suffers from three fundamental flaws. First, it is in the form of a letter directed to plaintiffs' counsel rather than a submission to the court. Second, although it is su b m itted in response to a motion to compel discovery, it purports to invoke Rule 11 of the Federal R u les of Civil Procedure, which does not apply to discovery motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d). I note that I directed defendants' attention to this provision of Rule 11 in an order denying a motion for sanctions they made earlier in this case. Docket Entry 75 at 4. Finally, the letter is replete with persona l attacks upon the integrity of plaintiffs' counsel. This is not the first time such attacks have been made, nor is it the first time I have been forced to caution counsel to refrain from making such attacks. In fact, I have repeatedly urged counsel ­ on at least one occasion in writing ­ to cease m a k ing personal attacks, and warned that sanctions would be imposed if the attacks continued. Docket Entry 75 at 7. I note that plaintiffs' letter dated February 19, 2009 makes no similar attacks u pon counsel for the defendants. F or the reasons stated above, defendants' submission does not constitute proper opposition to O RD ER 0 7 -C V -3 6 2 9 (ILG)

pla intiffs' motion to compel. Defendants may file a proper opposition no later than March 2, 2009. T he submission shall not contain any ad hominem attacks against plaintiffs' counsel; any su bm ission that does contain such attacks will not be considered by the court. Failure to file timely opposition, or the filing of an opposition papers containing personal attacks, will result in plaintiffs' m otion being granted as unopposed. S O ORDERED.

/s/ Steven M . Gold U n ite d States M ag is tr ate Judge F e b r u ar y 26, 2009 B r o o klyn , New York

U:\eoc 2009\gortat 0222609.wpd

2