Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER DANIEL J. STEWART , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Compel production of numerous documents from the Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66. A telephone conference was held, on the record, on January 13, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had full opportunity to present their respective positions. At the close of argument I issued a decision on the record, in which, after applying the requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in part
Summary: ORDER DANIEL J. STEWART , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Compel production of numerous documents from the Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66. A telephone conference was held, on the record, on January 13, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had full opportunity to present their respective positions. At the close of argument I issued a decision on the record, in which, after applying the requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in part t..
More
ORDER
DANIEL J. STEWART, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Compel production of numerous documents from the Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66. A telephone conference was held, on the record, on January 13, 2017, wherein all parties appeared and had full opportunity to present their respective positions. At the close of argument I issued a decision on the record, in which, after applying the requisite legal standards, I granted in part and denied in part the Motions pending before the Court. I also provided further detail regarding my reasoning and addressed the specific issues raised by the parties.
After due deliberation, and based up the Court's oral decision, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein, it is hereby,
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 64 & 66) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Defendants Carey and Yannone shall respond to Demands # 1(b) and to 1(e) only to the extent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands ## 1(a), (c), (d), (f), & (g).
(2) Defendants Youngblood, Donn, and Auigar shall respond to Demand # 2(c) only to the extent that the reports in question detail the arrest of the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012, and any force used or not used in connection with the arrest. The Court will not compel responses to Demands ## 2(a), (b), & (d).
(3) Defendants Jones, Gregory, Sager, and Frascello shall respond only to Demand # 3(c).
(4) Defendants Hubicki and Juliano shall respond only to Demands ## 4(a), (b), (c), & (d).
Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have fourteen (14) days1 within which to file written objections to the foregoing discovery order. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. As specifically noted in Rule 72(a) "[a] party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to."
SO ORDERED.
