Gssime v. Dr. Watson et al

Filing 88

ORDER re 83 84 85 86 87 : see attached order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 12/3/2013. c/ecf (Johnston, Linda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
SAID GSSIME,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
CV 09-5581 (JS)(ARL)

-againstDR. WATSON, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
The court is in receipt of pro se plaintiff’s four-page “Motion to Compel Discovery and
Enforce Penalties for Refusal to Produce the Proper Requested Documents,” dated November 7,
2013 and “Motion to Compel Discovery and Enforce Penalties,” dated November 11, 2013, and
Defendant Nassau County’s Response to the Motions.1 Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant Nassau County’s production of documents was unnecessary, duplicative and employed
deceitful legal tactics. Plaintiff concedes, however, that “I haven[‘]t of yet fully examined this load
of unnecessary papers.” Notably, in his “Reply to the Order” dated November 15, 2013, plaintiff
admits that “[a]fter careful examination of all Documents requested under Discovery which was
sent to plaintiff,” he “obtained the true Identity of the Physician/Assistant,” information he had
previously sought. Plaintiffs’ motions are denied.
As a threshold matter, notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that defendant Nassau County
has been deceitful,” plaintiff is required in the first instance to confer with defense counsel in an
attempt to resolve discovery disputes prior to seeking court assistance. Given plaintiff’s
incarceration, the court understands the difficulty in placing a telephone call to defense counsel;
however plaintiff can mail a letter to defense counsel in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes.
Moreover, it is clear from defendant’s response that Nassau County is willing to provide plaintiff
with discovery and has urged the undersigned to direct plaintiff to contact defendant’s office so that
discovery disputes can be resolved prior to seeking judicial intervention. Finally, plaintiff is
advised that prior to making an application to the court, he must conduct a careful review of all his
records and documents. “Although pro se litigants must be afforded a certain amount of latitude,
they are still required to attempt to comply with procedural rules, especially when they can be
understood without legal training and experience.” Yadav v. Brookhaven Nat. Laboratory, 487
Fed. Appx. 671, 672 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 617 F.ed 601, 605 (2d Cir.

1

Pursuant to the undersigned’s individual rules, parties are encouraged, when possible, to
make discovery and other non-dispositive motions pursuant to Local Rule 37.3, which requires the
parties to notify the court of a discovery dispute by letter not exceeding three pages in length. The
plaintiff is encouraged to contact the pro se office if he requires any further explanation of the
Rules.

2008)). The plaintiff is encourage to contact the pro se office if he requires any further
explanation of these procedures.
Defendant Nassau County is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the pro se plaintiff
forthwith.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 3, 2013

SO ORDERED:

______/s/____________________
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge