Hernandez v. Warwick Properties. Inc. et al
Filing 231
ORDER: The request for a pre-motion conference is DENIED as unnecessary at this time, for the reasons set forth below, as further set forth. Accordingly, at this time, the Court is not persuaded that AM Framing has acted with "willfulness [or] b ad faith" such that the "drastic remedy" of striking AM Framing's answer is appropriate. See Pelgrift v. 355 W. 51st Tavern Inc., 2016 WL 817470, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2016). However, should AM Framing engage in additional cond uct prejudicial to plaintiff or fail to cooperate in discovery, the Court may reconsider. The Court reminds counsel that they "are expected to cooperate with each other... in all phases of the discovery process and to be courteous in their dealings with each other." S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 26.4(a). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 9/15/2022) (mml)
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.
