Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number

PERRIM ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ARLENE LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge

Before the court is the plaintiff's letter application dated May 13, 2011, seeking to compel defendants to (i) provide full and complete responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and document demands; (ii) to respond to two supplemental document requests served on March 30, 2011 in letter form; (iii) to produce the Internal Affairs report. Defendants oppose the application.

Plaintiff's motion is denied. It is clear from the application, that the plaintiff did not confer with defendants' counsel prior to making the motion. Local Rule 37.3 and the undersigned's individual rules require attorneys for the affected parties to confer in good faith in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the disputes prior to seeking judicial intervention. Letter campaigns do not satisfy this obligation. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants are directed to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve the issues concerning the interrogatories and document demands.

SO ORDERED:

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ANDERSON v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
(May 20, 2011)