Digs NYC L.L.C. et al v. G.M. Madonna & Co., L.L.C. et al
| Digs NYC L.L.C., Evanthia and Bhupindar |
| G.M. Madonna & Co., L.L.C., Madonna & Co., L.L.C., Madonnaandco.com, L.L.C. and Geralynn Madonna |
| 1:2014cv00538 |
| January 29, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Paul A. Crotty |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
66
ORDER on 64 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The Court has read the Plaintiffs' letter, dated October 14, 2015, and the Defendants' response, dated October 20, 2015. The exchange of correspondence demonstrates the value of the "meet and confer" process to resolve discovery disputes before they are brought to the Court for resolution. It is no excuse for Plaintiffs to make this application because their present counsel is at odds with prior counsel for the P laintiffs. The Court sets forth its rulings with respect to each of the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiffs letter, dated October 14, 2015. 1. The request is denied. Production of the ledgers is satisfactory, but they must be both legible. Plaintif fs must identify what portions are illegible, and if they are, Defendants must provide legible copies. 2. The request is denied. Vendor invoices are redundant. If any printouts provided in response to this request are illegible, legible copies sh ould be produced. 3.This request denied. See Defendants response to requests 7 and 8. 4.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 5.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 6.Defendants response to this request is satisfac tory. 7.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 8.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 10.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 11.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory, but Defendants sho uld provide the Bates Numbers of the documents produced in response to this request. 12.This request is denied. It is not relevant. 13.Defendants response is satisfactory, except that Defendants should provide the Bates Numbers for the documents p roduced in response to this request. 14.This request is denied. It is not relevant. 15.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 16.Defendants should provide Bates Numbers. 17.Defendants should provide Bates Numbers. 18.This request is denied. 19.Defendants should provide Bates Numbers. 20.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 22.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 23.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 25.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. 26.Defendants response to this request is satisfactory. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate docket entry #64. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on November 19, 2015) (mov)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
