Lanham v. Lumenis Inc., 19 Civ. 24 (AKH). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200130673
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN , District Judge . On January 10, 2020, I held a conference to resolve the parties' joint letter motion dated January 6, 2020 (ECF No. 68). As stated on the record: 1. By January 31, 2020, Defendants shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document requests. The relevant time period for production is from January 1, 2016 until the filing of the complaint. 2. Following document production, Plaintiff may depose Defendant Steven Gerhart for an additional
Summary: ORDER ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN , District Judge . On January 10, 2020, I held a conference to resolve the parties' joint letter motion dated January 6, 2020 (ECF No. 68). As stated on the record: 1. By January 31, 2020, Defendants shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document requests. The relevant time period for production is from January 1, 2016 until the filing of the complaint. 2. Following document production, Plaintiff may depose Defendant Steven Gerhart for an additional ..
More
ORDER
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge.
On January 10, 2020, I held a conference to resolve the parties' joint letter motion dated January 6, 2020 (ECF No. 68). As stated on the record:
1. By January 31, 2020, Defendants shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' document requests. The relevant time period for production is from January 1, 2016 until the filing of the complaint.
2. Following document production, Plaintiff may depose Defendant Steven Gerhart for an additional day.
3. Depositions shall be completed by February 28, 2020.
4. The status conference previously scheduled for February 21, 2020 is adjourned to March 6, 2020.
On January 16, 2020, the parties filed another joint letter motion (ECF No. 72) stemming from a disagreement over the scope of my orders at the January 10, 2020 conference. The January 16, 2020 letter also raises a dispute regarding Plaintiff's Second Set of Document Demands, served January 9, 2020. I rule as follows:
1. My order requiring Defendants' production of documents in response to Plaintiff's requests applied to all requests, not only to the examples discussed at the conference. To the extent Defendants have specific (rather than boilerplate) objections, they shall meet and confer with Plaintiff to resolve them.
2. The relevant time period for production is from January 1, 2016 until the filing of the First Amended Complaint, filed January 18, 2019.
3. Plaintiff's request for documents in response to Plaintiff's Second Set of Document Demands is denied. This action has been pending for over one year, and the deadline for serving document demands expired almost three months before Plaintiff's Second Set of Document Demands.
The Clerk shall terminate the open motions (ECF Nos. 68, 72).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
