Richardson v. New York City et al

Filing 34

ORDER: By 32 letter dated 10/12/2010, plaintiff moves to compel defendants' responses to discovery requests, which had purportedly not been timely served. Defendants 33 respond, stating that they timely mailed plaintiff the responses on 10/ 12/2010. Plaintiff's 32 request is therefore denied. The Court reminds plaintiff that he is obligated to make a diligent, good faith effort to resolve any discovery dispute with opposing counsel before seeking Court intervention. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, on 10/21/2010) C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------J(
RICHARD RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, -againstSERGEANT LYNDON PROVIDENCE Shield # 19061; POLICE OFFICER JASWANT DYAL - Shield #13885, Defendants. ORDER 09 CV 4647 (ARR)(LB)

--------------------------------------------------------J(
BLOOM, United States Magistrate Judge:

By letter dated October 12, 2010, plaintiff moves to compel defendants' responses to discovery requests, which had purportedly not been timely served. (Document 32.) Defendants

respond, stating that they timely mailed plaintiff the responses on October 12, 2010. (Document 33.) Plaintiffs request is therefore denied. The Court reminds plaintiff that he is obligated to

make a diligent, good faith effort to resolve any discovery dispute with opposing counsel before seeking Court intervention. (See Discovery Order dated May 20,2010, document 19.)

SO ORDERED.

/Signed by Judge Lois Bloom/

Lois BLOOM
Dated: October 21,2010 Brooklyn, New York United States Magistrate Judge

1