Deac v. IL Postino, Inc. et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 72 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Ovidium Marcel Deac: For the reasons stated herein, to the extent plaintiff's June 13th submission was intended by plaintiff to serve as a motion to compel, that application is denied. C/mailed to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 6/20/2014. (Bauermeister, Mischa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
OVIDIU MARCEL DEAC,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12-CV-5952 (NGG)

IL POSTINO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
In an Order dated June 17, 2014, this Court ruled that pro se plaintiff’s June 13th
“Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Pl. Motion”), Electronic Case
Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #72, does not satisfy plaintiff’s obligations under Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56.1 of this district’s Local Civil Rules, or the court
orders issued earlier this month. See Order (June 17, 2014) at 1, DE #73; see also Order
(June 6, 2014), DE #69; Order (June 11, 2014), DE #71. Plaintiff was therefore again
ordered to properly respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment by June 30, 2014.
To the extent that plaintiff’s June 13th submission--though titled “Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment”--was intended by plaintiff to serve as a motion to
compel,1 that application is denied. Suffice it to say, discovery ended last year, and plaintiff’s
challenges to defendants’ responses to his discovery demands were exhaustively litigated in a

1

Among other things, plaintiff’s submission includes headings titled “DEFENDANTS HAS
[sic] NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE INFORMATION CONCERNING CERTAIN
WITHHOLDINGS,” “PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY REQUEST AND
WRITTEN INTERROGATORY,” and “DEFENDANTS HAS NOT CONDUCTED AN
ADEQUATE SEARCH FOR EVALUATION RECORDS.” Pl. Motion at 1–2.

series of applications and court orders. See, e.g., Memorandum and Order (Nov. 20, 2013),
DE #54; Memorandum and Order (Dec. 12, 2013), DE #58. Plaintiff will not now be heard to
belatedly raise new arguments or rehash old ones.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
June 20, 2014

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-