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

Filing 165

ORDER denying without prejudice 163 Motion to Strike document 163 CROSS MOTION to Strike Document No. [154, 154-1] . filed by Yoel Weisshaus from the record. Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is denied, without prejudice. (Signed by Judge Richard K. Eaton, U.S.D.J., by Designation on 9/16/2022) (rro)

Case 1:11-cv-06616-RKE Document 165 Filed 09/16/22 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

The Court has received Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). ECF No. 163. By his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Elizabeth
McCarthy’s affidavit from the record, ECF No. 154, and preclude the Port Authority from relying
on any testimony from Ms. McCarthy on the grounds that the Port Authority failed to properly
identify Ms. McCarthy as a witness under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) or (a)(2).
See ECF No. 163-1.
Plaintiff has failed, however, to comply with this Court’s Local Civil Rule 37.2 which
provides the procedures for raising discovery disputes with the Court. This rule states:
No motion under Rules 26 through 37 inclusive of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall be heard unless counsel for the moving party has first requested an
informal conference with the Court by letter-motion for a pre-motion discovery
conference (subject to the instructions regarding ECF published on the Court’s
website and the Judge’s Individual Practices) and such request has either been
denied or the discovery dispute has not been resolved as a consequence of such a
conference.
Local Civil Rule 37.2 (emphasis added).

Case 1:11-cv-06616-RKE Document 165 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2
Court No. 11-6616

Page 2

Thus, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s Rule 37(c)(1) motion at this time because he
did not first request an informal pre-motion conference with the Court by way of letter-motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is denied, without prejudice.

Dated: September 16, 2022
New York, New York

/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton
U.S.D.J., by Designation