Kandey Company, Inc. v. Barbera et al

Filing 47

ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott's Report and Recommendation 40 as filed on December 16, 2014. Plaintiff's cross motion to strike the Answer as a discovery sanction 33 is denied in part, and defendants are ordered to appea r at plaintiff's depositions. Defendants' motion for a protective Order 31 is denied. Depositions shall be conducted pursuant to the terms of the attached Order. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 1/12/15. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KANDEY COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
13-CV-585A

v.
CASEY BARBERA, et al.,

Defendants.

The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B.
Scott, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On December 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge
Scott filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that plaintiff’s cross motion
to strike the Answer (Dkt. No. 33) should be denied in part. Further, it was
recommended that defendants’ motion for a protective Order (Dkt. No. 31) be denied,
and that depositions shall occur in Buffalo, NY, as noticed by plaintiff, who shall serve
notices with the new dates within 60 days of the filing of Magistrate Judge Scott’s
Report and Recommendation.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the
record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no
objections having been timely filed, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons
set forth in Magistrate Judge Scott’s Report and Recommendation, plaintiff’s cross
motion to strike the Answer as a discovery sanction (Dkt. No. 33) is denied in part, and
defendants are ordered to appear at plaintiff’s depositions. Defendants’ motion for a

protective Order (Dkt. No. 31) is denied, and depositions shall occur in Buffalo, NY as
noticed by plaintiff, who shall serve notices with the new dates within 60 days of the
filing of Magistrate Judge Scott’s Report and Recommendation.
The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: January 12, 2015