Weisshaus v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al

Filing 101

ORDER with respect to 92 Motion to Compel; with respect to 92 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; with respect to 94 Motion for Protective Order. it is hereby ORDERED that, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 33, Defendan t's answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories numbered 1-19 are due by January 4, 2021; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant need not answer Plaintiff's interrogatories 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, as these are clearly outside the scope of the sole issue remaining this case, that is, the setting of tolls to fund projects unconnected to the Port Authority's interdependent transportation system (ITN); and it is further ORDERED that, when answering the interrogatories, Defendant may object to any questions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and make use of the answers found in its declaration, ECF No. 95; and it is further ORDERED that, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6), Defendant shall designate a witness to be deposed on behalf of the organization. While it would be remarkable if Defendant finds itself unable to comply with the order because it determines that a witness cannot be designated because of unavailability or any other reason, Def endant shall support this contention with an affidavit of an officer of the Port Authority stating the facts relating to its inability to comply; and it is further ORDERED that the Court reserves judgment on all other matters contained in Plaintiff&# 039;s motion to compel, Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion, and Defendant's cross-motion for a protective order. The parties should anticipate a telephone scheduling conference with the Court following Defendant's submission of responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Richard K. Eaton on 12/10/2020) (kv)

Download PDF
Case 1:11-cv-06616-RKE Document 101 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------x YOEL WEISSHAUS, Plaintiff, -against- 11 Civ. 6616 (RKE) ORDER PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 92, Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and its cross-motion for a protective order, ECF Nos. 94-96, and all other papers and proceedings had herein, it is hereby ORDERED that, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 33, Defendant’s answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories numbered 1-19 are due by January 4, 2021; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant need not answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, as these are clearly outside the scope of the sole issue remaining this case, that is, the setting of tolls to fund projects unconnected to the Port Authority’s interdependent transportation system (ITN); and it is further ORDERED that, when answering the interrogatories, Defendant may object to any questions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and make use of the answers found in its declaration, ECF No. 95; and it is further ORDERED that, in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6), Defendant shall designate a Case 1:11-cv-06616-RKE Document 101 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2 No. 11-cv-6616 Page 2 witness to be deposed on behalf of the organization. While it would be remarkable if Defendant finds itself unable to comply with the order because it determines that a witness cannot be designated because of unavailability or any other reason, Defendant shall support this contention with an affidavit of an officer of the Port Authority stating the facts relating to its inability to comply; and it is further ORDERED that the Court reserves judgment on all other matters contained in Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, and Defendant’s cross-motion for a protective order. The parties should anticipate a telephone scheduling conference with the Court following Defendant’s submission of responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard K. Eaton Richard K. Eaton U.S.D.J., by Designation Dated: December 10, 2020 New York, New York

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?