Marino v. Watts et al

Filing 103

ORDER: ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 98 ) is denied without prejudice to re-filing if necessary. ORDERED, that Defendants' Letter-Motion (Dkt. No. 99 ) is granted and the demands set forth in Plaintiff's Motion shall be deemed as a properly served request for production of documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Defendants shall respond to such demands in accordance with the time-frame set forth in Rule 34 as if the Plaintiff's demands had been served on the same date as this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 2/15/17. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VINCENT MICHAEL MARINO,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Civ. No. 9:12-CV-801
(NAM/DJS)

DEBORAH G. SCHULT, et al.,
Defendants.
D

DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
On January 25, 2017, the Court received Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 98, and
directed a response be filed by Defendants on or before February 9, 2017. In response, Defendants
J

filed a Letter-Motion explaining that the Defendants had never been served with the particular
demands set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and such documents are not those which would
have been included in their mandatory disclosure pursuant to a previous Court Order. Dkt. No. 99.
Accordingly, they ask that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be denied with leave to renew at some
future date, if necessary, and that the Court instead construe the demands contained therein to have

S

been submitted to the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Defendants’
request is granted.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 98) is denied without prejudice
to re-filing if necessary; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Letter-Motion (Dkt. No. 99) is granted and the demands set
forth in Plaintiff’s Motion shall be deemed as a properly served request for production of documents

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Defendants shall respond to such demands in
accordance with the time-frame set forth in Rule 34 as if the Plaintiff’s demands had been served
on the same date as this Order; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
D

Date: February 15, 2017
Albany, New York

J
S

-2-