Akman v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Delaware Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Compel; for the reasons stated in this Court's Memorandum and Order, plaintiff's counsel has ignored the Order To Show Cause and has not responded. Defendant's motion to compel is therefore granted, to the following extent: Plaintiff must, on pain of sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of his complaint, respond without objection, by June 5, 2012, to all discovery demands served by defendant o n April 2, 2012, and must appear for his deposition on June 7, 2012 (or on such other date prior to the conclusion of discovery, but only if agreed to by defendants counsel). Plaintiff and his counsel are warned that any further violations of court orders and/or of plaintiff's discovery obligations will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions such as fees and costs, as well as a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Defendant's motion for fees and costs is denied without prejudice, pending plaintiff's compliance with this Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 6/1/2012. (Maynard, Pat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
MOHAMMAD AKMAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
11-CV-3252 (SLT)

PEP BOYS MANN MOE & JACK
OF DELAWARE INC.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
In an application dated May 24, 2012, defendants requested an order compelling
plaintiff Mohammad Akman (1) to respond (without objection) to defendant’s written discvoery
demands (served on April 2, 2012) and (2) to reimburse defendant for the fees and costs
incurred in connection with making the May 24th motion. See Letter Motion to Compel (May
24, 2012), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #12. In that letter-motion, defendant’s
counsel recounted his attempts, since May 9, 2012, to communicate with plaintiff’s counsel
about plaintiff’s discovery derelictions, and he represented that plaintiff’s counsel had failed to
respond to any of defense counsel’s communications. See id. at 1.
In light of the aforesaid allegations, this Court endorsed an order on May 24, 2012,
directing plaintiff “to show cause, via ECF, by May 29, 2012, why the relief requested should
not be granted.” Order To Show Cause (May 24, 2012), DE #13. The Court’s Order To
Show Cause was docketed into the ECF court file and was transmitted to plaintiff’s counsel’s

email address. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s counsel has ignored the Order To Show Cause and has
not responded.
Defendant’s motion to compel is therefore granted, to the following extent: Plaintiff
must, on pain of sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of his complaint, respond
without objection, by June 5, 2012, to all discovery demands served by defendant on April 2,
2012, and must appear for his deposition on June 7, 2012 (or on such other date prior to the
conclusion of discovery, but only if agreed to by defendant’s counsel). Plaintiff and his
counsel are warned that any further violations of court orders and/or of plaintiff’s discovery
obligations will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions such as fees and costs, as well as
a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Defendant’s motion for fees and costs is denied without prejudice, pending plaintiff’s
compliance with this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
June 1, 2012

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-