BAILEY v. NEW YORK AUTOMOTIVE AND DIESEL INSTITUTE, CV 2014-4142 (SLT)(MDG). (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20150428c45
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARILYN D. GO , Magistrate Judge . By letter dated April 24, 2015, defendant New York Automotive and Diesel Institute states that it has been unable to contact pro se plaintiff Simpson B. Bailey, Jr., despite several attempts by telephone, email and Federal Express, since the initial conference was held on February 19, 2015. See ct. doc. 18. Defendant states that it followed the Court's instructions at the initial conference to send plaintiff a proposed confidentiality order and d
Summary: ORDER MARILYN D. GO , Magistrate Judge . By letter dated April 24, 2015, defendant New York Automotive and Diesel Institute states that it has been unable to contact pro se plaintiff Simpson B. Bailey, Jr., despite several attempts by telephone, email and Federal Express, since the initial conference was held on February 19, 2015. See ct. doc. 18. Defendant states that it followed the Court's instructions at the initial conference to send plaintiff a proposed confidentiality order and di..
More
ORDER
MARILYN D. GO, Magistrate Judge.
By letter dated April 24, 2015, defendant New York Automotive and Diesel Institute states that it has been unable to contact pro se plaintiff Simpson B. Bailey, Jr., despite several attempts by telephone, email and Federal Express, since the initial conference was held on February 19, 2015. See ct. doc. 18. Defendant states that it followed the Court's instructions at the initial conference to send plaintiff a proposed confidentiality order and discovery requests, but has not received a response. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff also has not served initial disclosures required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 2.
Mr. Bailey is advised that he must respond to defendant's attempts to discuss a proposed confidentiality order and respond to defendant's discovery requests. Mr. Bailey also must inform the Court and counsel for defendant of any changes in his contact information. Plaintiff's continued failure to participate in discovery will ultimately result in this Court's recommendation that his complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute this action.
Defendant must file a status report by May 27, 2015 as to whether it has received any communications from plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
