Bounkhoun v. Barnes et al

Filing 44

DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 35 Motion for Disclosure.Joint written status report due 6/28/2019.Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 5/7/2019. (GAI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Chandy Bounkhoun,
Plaintiff,

Decision and Order
15-CV-631A

v.
Steven E. Barnes, Esq., et al.,
Defendants.

Familiarity with the background of the case is presumed. On November 30, 2018, plaintiff
filed a motion to compel responses to certain discovery demands including interrogatories. (Dkt.
No. 35.) Specifically, plaintiff served a first request for production of documents on July 25, 2018
and a first set of interrogatories on July 31, 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel on
September 5, 2018 by email to inquire about the status of any responses. Defense counsel
responded on September 10, 2018 that responses would be forthcoming. There appears to have
been some confusion about whether a mediation session that occurred on November 14, 2018
actually had or ought to have had some impact on the timetable for defense counsel’s response. In
any event, defense counsel served discovery responses on December 12, 2018, one day before
responses to the motion were due.
The Court has reviewed defense counsel’s responses to plaintiff’s counsel’s requests. The
principal response to the various questions appears to have been the production of the entire client
file in question. Defense counsel also provided background information in response to certain
interrogatories, including insurance coverage information and an estimate of fair value. (See generally
Dkt. Nos. 37-1, 37-2.) Certain other questions either drew objections about privileged work product
or prompted responses that further clarification was needed or that trial exhibits would be ready at a

later time. Since plaintiff’s counsel twice declined to file reply papers in support of the motion (see
Dkt. Nos. 38, 40), the Court has difficulty discerning plaintiff’s position on the adequacy of
defendants’ responses.
Under the circumstances, a stepwise approach will be best. If the adequacy of defendants’
responses needs to be addressed then that can be addressed later, perhaps in conjunction with any
concerns that defendants have about the production from plaintiff that was due on April 30, 2019.
(Dkt. No. 43.) For now, defendants did respond to plaintiff’s outstanding requests. The Court
accordingly will deny plaintiff’s motion as moot but without prejudice. No costs will be assessed to
either side.
According to the current scheduling order, the next major pretrial deadline will not occur
until December 16, 2019. The Court wants to stay informed about any issues in the interim that
might require attention. To that end, the parties will file a joint written status report on or before
June 28, 2019. The status report will advise the Court about overall progress in the case as well as
any issues that have arisen that the parties cannot resolve on their own.
SO ORDERED.

__/s Hugh B. Scott________
DATED: May 7, 2019

Hon. Hugh B. Scott
United States Magistrate Judge

2