Perez et al v. G & P Auto Wash Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER re 8 9 : See attached order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 5/20/2011. c/ecf (Johnston, Linda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
ENRIQUE PEREZ, et al.,,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
CV 10-4453 (DRH)(ARL)

-againstG & P AUTO WASH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is the defendants’ letter application dated May 12, 2011, seeking to
preclude the plaintiffs from using certain discovery materials, or alternatively to compel plaintiffs
to supplement their responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Document Demands.
Defendants oppose the application and cross-move by letter application dated May 13, 2011 to
preclude defendants from using certain discovery materials, or alternatively to compel plaintiffs to
supplement their responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Interrogatories and First Request for
Documents. That portion of defendants’ reply letter dated May 16, 2011 that seeks to reply to
plaintiff’s opposition to their discovery motion will not be considered. See Local Rule 37.3(c).
The motions are denied.
To the extent that defendants maintain that plaintiffs responses to the First Set of
Interrogatories and Document Demands, the parties are directed to meet and confer in an attempt
to resolve this matter. Letter campaigns and telephone tag do not satisfy the parties obligation to
confer in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute prior to seeking judicial intervention See
Local Rule 37.3. Although plaintiffs contend that they have e-mailed defendants’ attorney their
supplemental responses and will mail the final verification upon receipt, if defense counsel
believes that the plaintiffs have not responded to the defendants’ discovery requests, counsel will
discuss the matter with plaintiffs’ counsel and attempt to set a deadline for the production of all
outstanding responses. Likewise, to the extent that plaintiffs maintain that defendants have not
responded to plaintiffs discovery requests, counsel with discuss the matter with defense counsel
and attempt to set a deadline for the production of all outstanding responses. Moreover, any
applications for preclusion of the evidence must be addressed to the district court.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
May 20, 2011

SO ORDERED:
_________/s/_____________________
ARLENE R. LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge