Lastra v. City Of New York et al
| James Lastra |
| City Of New York, Bill DeBlasio, William J. Bratton, Edmonds, Antoine and John Does 1 - 4 |
| 1:2016cv03088 |
| April 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| John G. Koeltl |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
315
ORDER. The parties should submit a letter by May 18, 2022 indicating the date by which the defendants propose to file a motion to enforce the purported settlement agreement, the date by which the plaintiff proposes to respond to any such motion, and the date by which the defendants propose to reply. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff and to note service in the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/11/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
314
ORDER: A conference in this matter is scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, 2022, at 3:30pm. Dial-in: 888 363-4749. Access code: 8140049. All deadlines are stayed pending the conference. The clerk shall close Document 311 as a letter motion. The Clerk should mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 5/11/2022 at 03:30 PM before Judge John G. Koeltl.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/2/2022) (va)
|
|
Filing
310
ORDER: The parties are directed to file a status report by April 29, 2022. SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/15/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
309
ORDER granting 308 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 308 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. APPLICATION GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/9/2021) (ks)
|
|
Filing
305
ORDER: Per the conference held on August 9, 2021, 1. Plaintiff's request in his letter filed July 27, 2021 (Dkt. 295) for the production of certain purported evidence discussed during the deposition of Officer Edmonds and which Plaintiff co ntends does not exist and never existed is DENIED. Defendants represent that they do not have possession, custody, or control of the alleged item (an "inactive warrant") but have not been able to conduct a complete search in the absence o f a completed authorization from Plaintiff that would permit access to sealed material. The issue of the purported "inactive warrant," and whether there ever was one, has been addressed earlier in this litigation. The discovery deadline, except for taking of three depositions that have now occurred, expired many months ago, and any issues regarding document discovery could and should have been raised during that time. The consequences of the state of the record with respect a purport ed "inactive warrant" will be dealt with at the appropriate juncture. 2. Plaintiff's request that Defendants' July 30, 2021 letter (Dkt. 297), or portions thereof, be removed or sealed is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff shall provide Defen dants with (i) a recording of the deposition of Officer Pennant and (ii) certified transcripts of the depositions of Officer Pennant and Sergeant Basler no later than September 30, 2021. Consistent with the Court's last order (Dkt. 291), Plaint iff's failure to produce the recording and certified transcript of any witness by that deadline will preclude him from using that deposition testimony in the future. 4. Defendants' request that the Court revise its order at Dkt. 291 is DE NIED. 5. The time for Defendants to make a dispositive motion for summary judgment is extended to October 30, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 10/30/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 8/9/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all parties of record via ECF. (mml)
|
|
Filing
300
ORDER: The time for plaintiff to object to the Magistrate Judge's June 14, 2021 ruling, memorialized on June 21, 2021, is extended to August 31, 2021. The defendants' time to respond is September 14, 2021. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/30/2021) (mml) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
292
ORDER: The time for plaintiff to object to the Magistrate Judge's June 14, 2021 ruling, memorialized on June 21, 2021, is extended to July 30, 2021. The defendants' time to respond is August 9, 2021. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/19/2021) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
285
ORDER granting 284 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The plaintiff, James Lastra, seeks an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's rule during a deposition on June 14, 2021, that was subsequently confirmed in a do cket entry order on June 21, 2021. ECF No. 283. The application is granted. The plaintiff may file objections by July 9, 2021. The defendants may respond to any objection by July 16, 2021. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 284. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the prose plaintiff. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 6/28/2021) (cf) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
281
ORDER: The Court has been informed that Plaintiff called chambers again on an ex parte basis. Plaintiff is reminded that the parties may not call the Court ex parte (i.e., without also having defense counsel on the line). Following up on the Court� 39;s previous order, the parties are reminded that if a document required to be produced in discovery was not in fact produced prior to deposition of a witness to whom it is relevant, the deponent may, upon application and order by the Court, be required to return for further questioning at the defending party's expense. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 6/11/2021). (rsh)
|
|
Filing
276
ORDER: This resolves the deposition issues raised by Plaintiff at Dkt. 272 and 273 and responded to by Defendants at Dkt. 274, as further stated in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 6/7/2021) (rsh)
|
|
Filing
271
ORDER: Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to take depositions is denied except as further stated in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 6/3/2021) (rsh)
|
|
Filing
267
ORDER terminating 265 Letter Motion for Discovery. This order resolves the deposition issues raised at Dkts. 264 and 265. 1. Plaintiff may video-record and/or audio record depositions of the defendants using the virtual platform's means fo r doing so. Such recording may not be admissible as evidence in lieu of a properly certified recording or transcript. 2. Unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court, and without prejudice to making a future application if warranted by the circums tances, Plaintiff shall not disseminate any recording of the depositions to any third parties for any purpose other than counsel of record, a certified court reporter retained to transcribe the recording, and the Court for purposes of this case; Plai ntiff shall not file any recording of the depositions on the public docket (but may file such material under seal if submitted in good faith for purposes of the case); and Plaintiff shall not use the deposition recording for any purpose other than th is case. 3. While recording the depositions, Plaintiff shall use the "Spotlight" function or its equivalent, if there is one, on the virtual platform to focus the camera view on the witness for the entirety of the deposition. 4. Plaintiff must provide defense counsel with a copy of any recording made of a deposition within five days following the deposition. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 5/28/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all parties of record via ECF. (mml)
|
|
Filing
253
ORDER: This order resolves the issues addressed in this Court's March 12, 2021 order (Dkt. 246). 1. Discovery shall be reopened to allow for an opportunity to complete taking of depositions. Although discovery closed on August 31, 2020, Judge Koeltl recognized that the schedule would "have to be reset" in light of his order issued on September 18, 2020, resolving a discovery issue regarding material (patrol officer guides) that Plaintiff sought to use with depositions of Def endants. (Dkt. 221 at 4.) Having filed his objections leading to Judge Koeltl's order (which overruled those objections) on July 21, 2020, Plaintiff could have requested at that time, or at any time prior to expiration of discovery on August 31, 2020, that the discovery deadline be extended in light of his having filed objections on which Judge Koeltl would need to rule. But the Court will not hold Plaintiff at fault in that respect inasmuch the discovery deadline set by this Court also was the subject of Plaintiffs objections. As for the period preceding Plaintiff's objections, as early as December 2018, Plaintiff was relatively diligent in pressing for depositions of Defendants albeit without need for the patrol guide. Accor dingly, discovery will be reopened so that the parties have the opportunity to complete depositions. The new and final fact discovery deadline is June 15, 2021. 2. Plaintiff is reminded that in noticing and taking depositions, he must adhere to the procedures previously delineated by the Court at Dkts. 139 and 173 paragraph 4. And because pandemic conditions continue, depositions shall be conducted remotely, unless the parties agree otherwise. An example of stipulated conditions for remote dep ositions is available on this Court's website page. Plaintiff must make the arrangements for any depositions he plans to take, and must do so in cooperation with defense counsel. 3. Defendants are relieved from the order requiring identification of the John Doe officer that has been the subject of dispute. Defendants have demonstrated that the officer Plaintiff has identified in a photograph was not present at the incident that is the subject of this case. (Dkt. 247.) Defendants have otherw ise made sufficient efforts to identify the purported additional John Doe officer. 4. Plaintiff's request for another conference (Dkt. 252) is denied as moot. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 4/7/2021) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (mml)
|
|
Filing
246
ORDER: As discussed during the status conference held on March 11, 2021: 1. By March 25, 2021, Defendants shall provide a sworn statement from officer J.S. regarding his presence or lack of presence at the incident at issue in this case. The office r need only provide his initials at this time. 2. The discovery deadline in this case expired on August 31, 2021. By March 25, 2021, Plaintiff may file a letter no longer than 3 pages addressing why he should not be deemed to have forfeited his right to take depositions based on the passage of time following July 21, 2021 (when he was provided with relevant sections of the patrol guide). By April 1, 2021, Defendants shall file a response, if any, of no more than three pages. The Court will then determine whether discovery should be re-opened for the limited purpose of taking depositions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/11/2021) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (mml)
|
|
Filing
242
ORDER: The Court has received an email from Plaintiff dated February 19, 2021. Plaintiff once again is reminded that he must send all Court communications to the pro se office. The pro se email address is: Temporary_Pro_Se_Fili ng@nysd.uscourts.gov. Additionally, Plaintiff must copy defense counsel on any communications with the Court. The most recent email does not appear to have been sent to defense counsel. Any future communication sent in violation of these rules will not be read by the Court and will not be acted on. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/22/2021) (js) (Main Document 242 replaced on 2/23/2021) (js). (Main Document 242 replaced on 2/23/2021) (js).
|
|
Filing
240
ORDER: If Plaintiff wishes to respond to Defendants' letter dated February 11, 2021, he shall do so no later than February 22, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/16/2021) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (mml)
|
|
Filing
237
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's email to defense counsel dated February 3, 2021 (attached). The parties shall NOT send to, email, or file with the Court communications between counsel. Plaintiff must submit any correspondence t o the Court through the pro se office by emailing to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/4/2021) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (mml)
|
|
Filing
236
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Defendants' January 28, 2021 letter concerning Plaintiff's request for identification of a particular officer. (Dkt. 234.) Defendants' letter states the following: upon information and belief, th e "John Doe" officer was not assigned to the relevant precinct on September 6, 2014, and, further, was attending training on September 6, 2014. "Upon information and belief" is not sufficient to put this issue to rest. By Februa ry 11, 2021, Defendants shall provide a sworn declaration from someone with personal knowledge attesting to the statement. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/29/2021) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (mml)
|
|
Filing
232
ORDER: By January 14, 2020, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with any additional information concerning the photograph of the John Doe officer, including any of the information previously requested by Defendants. Plaintiff will receive no furth er opportunity to provide any such information after January 15, 2020. By January 28, 2020, Defendants shall either (1) identify the officer or (2) state that they have not been able to identify the officer; set forth the efforts undertaken to do so; and whether and why they believe all reasonable efforts have been exhausted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/29/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (jca)
|
|
Filing
229
ORDER: This order addresses issues discussed during today's status conference:1. By December 29, 2020, Defendants shall inform the Court by letter whether they can use the photograph provided by Plaintiff to identify the officer depicted. If Def endants cannot do so, they must file along with the letter a sworn statement by someone with personal knowledge as to why they cannot. If Defendants can do so, they shall identify the officer depicted to Plaintiff by January 6, 2021. 2. By December 2 9, 2020, Defendants shall inform the Court by letter to what extent they were able to locate and produce September 6, 2014 versions of the fourteen Patrol Guide sections identified in their letter of July 7, 2020 (Dkt. 207), for which, up until that time, they could identify only the current versions, and which were subject of the Court's July 1, 2020 Order at Dkt. 204, Paragraph 1. 3. The Court's July 1, 2020 Order expressly and unqualifiedly stated that all fact discovery, including depositions, had to be completed by August 31, 2020, even taking into account pandemic conditions. (Dkt. 204, Paragraphs 7-8.) The Court will assess whether discovery should be reopened for limited purposes based on the information provided in response to items 1 and 2 above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/22/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (ama)
|
|
Filing
224
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendants October 28, 2020 letter (Dkt. 222). If Plaintiff intends to respond, he shall do so no later than November 4, 2020. Absent a response, the Court will resolve the issues raised by Defendants based on the record as it is. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 11/4/2020) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 10/28/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and to pro se Plaintiff James Lastra. (jca)
|
|
Filing
221
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 215 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's late objections, the Defendants respectfully request that their opposition be due on Wednesday, August 5, 2020 addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Nicolette Pellegrin filed by City Of New York, Antoine, Edmonds. The Court has considered all of the plaintiff's arguments. To the extent that they are not referred to specifically above, they are either moot or without merit. The plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Judge's July 1, 2020 Order are overruled. The Clerk is directed to close all docket entries relating to the Objections including Dkt. Nos. 210, 211, 215 to 218, and 220. This Order will be filed on ECF by which the plaintiff has agreed to accept service. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/18/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
218
ORDER: The plaintiff may reply by August 10, 2020. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff at the email address jsavak@hotmail.com. In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is attached to this order. Pro se pa rties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court's website at nysd.uscourts.gov. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 8/5/2020) ( Replies due by 8/10/2020.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
210
ORDER: The Court received the attached email and documents from the plaintiff. The schedule remains the same. The plaintiff may file objections by July 21, 2020 and the defendants may respond by July 24, 2020. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/17/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
204
ORDER: For the reasons stated during the conference held on June 30, 2020: 1. By July 7, 2020, Defendants shall file a copy of the letter submitted to Plaintiff describing the sections of the patrol guide produced in response to his discovery reque sts to allow the Court to determine whether all sections of the patrol guide relevant to Plaintiff's have been produced. By July 21, 2020, Defendants must provide Plaintiff with any sections of the patrol guide that are both relevant to Plai ntiff's claims and were in effect when Plaintiff was arrested in 2014 not previously provided. 2. Plaintiff's request to take photographs of Precinct 8 is denied. 3. By July 21, 2020, Plaintiff shall produce any text messages, video rec ordings, or audio recordings relevant to his claims and not previously produced. Plaintiff is precluded from using any text messages, video recordings, or audio recordings not produced by that date as evidence in support of his claims. 4. By July 21, 2020, Plaintiff shall produce any factual evidence related to his alleged damages or loss of income. Plaintiff is precluded from using any factual evidence 7/1/2020 related to his alleged damages or loss of income not produced by that date as evidence in support of his claims. 5. By July 21, 2020, Plaintiff shall provide a fully executed HIPAA release for his neurologist, Dr. Fleming. 6. By July 21, 2020, Plaintiff shall provide a fully executed release for records from the arrest at issue in this case and for a list of his prior arrests, if any. 7. By August 31, 2020, all fact depositions must be completed. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court recognizes that some or all outstanding depositions may need to take place by video or telephonic means, and orders the parties to cooperate in ensuring that these depositions take place in a timely and efficient manner. The Court further reminds Plaintiff to comply with the parameters set in its prior order of October 7, 2019 (Dkt. 173), a copy of which is enclosed with this order. 8. All discovery in this matter shall be completed by August 31, 2020. Defense counsel shall send a copy of this order, along with any orders referenced herein, to Plaintiff by mail and by email within three (3) days and file proof such service on ECF. If counsel is unable to complete this mailing as a result of COVID-19 and related disruptions, counsel shall promptly notify the Court by letter filed on ECF., Deposition due by 8/31/2020., Discovery due by 8/31/2020. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7/1/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
198
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff's application for an extension to his March 20, 2020 deadline to pay the remaining $125.00 in sanctions, originally ordered on March 26, 2019. The Court grants that request. Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay the remaining $125.00 in sanctions by June 18, 2020. Defendants' counsel shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/27/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
197
ORDER granting 196 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. So Ordered. The parties may serve each other electronically until such time as the Court so orders otherwise. Defendant shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. Status Conference set for 6/2/2020 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 18D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/23/2020) (js) Modified on 3/24/2020 (js).
|
|
Filing
192
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 191 Motion to Seal. ENDORSEMENT: Motion denied for reasons as stated in Order at Dkt. 190, attached. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/4/2020) (mml) Modified on 3/4/2020 (mml).
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER: This order addresses the lengthy email Plaintiff sent to chambers on February 27, 2020, a copy of which is attached to this order: 1. Plaintiff's request to seal Defendants' letter motion dated February 21, 2020 is denied. The subst ance of the letter does not meet the Second Circuit standards for sealing. 2. Plaintiff's time to respond to the February 21 letter is extended to March 9, 2020. 3. Plaintiff is reminded not to send email to chambers and to instead submit commun ications to the Court through the pro se office. 4. Defendant shall bring to the March 11, 2020 settlement conference any additional HIPAA or other releases that Defendants requires Plaintiff to sign. The Court will determine at that time which rel eases, if any, Plaintiff must sign. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/28/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed to: James Lastra, 2241 Lafayette Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473. (mml)
|
|
Filing
189
ORDER: On February 21, 2020, Defendants find a motion to compel certain discovery from Plaintiff James Lastra. (Dkt. 187.) Plaintiff is directed to respond to Defendants' motion no later than March 2, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/2/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/24/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed to: James Lastra, 2241 Lafayette Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473. (mml)
|
|
Filing
186
ORDER: This order addresses the matters raised by Plaintiff in his January 23, 2020 email and Defendant's response. (Dkt. 184.) Both parties have indicated that they favor having a settlement conference prior to expending resources on certain a dditional discovery, which currently is set to close by March 16, 2020. As both parties have observed, the earliest dates the Court has available for a settlement conference are in March. Accordingly: 1. All remaining deadlines are extended an addit ional 30 days, with discovery to be completed by April 15, 2020. 2. A settlement conference will be held on March 11, 2020 in Courtroom 18D, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NU at which Plaintiff must appear, and defense counsel must have, or bring someone who has, full authority to settle the matter without being limited by a ceiling set by someone else. 3. The discovery issues raised by Plaintiff are premature for the Court to address. The parties shall meet and confer regarding those issues. If issues remain after doing so, the parties may raise them with the Court. SO ORDERED. ( Discovery due by 4/15/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/27/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff's application for a further extension to his January 9, 2020 deadline to pay sanctions of $250.00, originally ordered on March 26, 2019 and his application to pay such sanctions in two par ts. (Dkts. 155, 173, 177.) Defendants have not opposed. The Court grants both such requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay sanctions originally ordered on March 26, 2019 as follows: by February 29, 2020, Plaintiff is to pay $125.00 in sanctio ns. By March 20, 2020 (i.e., twenty days later), Plaintiff is to pay an additional $125.00 in sanctions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/13/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record and mailed to: James Lastra, 2241 Lafayette Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473. (mml)
|
|
Filing
123
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER. The request for removal from Magistrate Judge Lehrburger is therefore denied. Lastra also asks for various additional orders staying this case and enjoining his prior counsel, Scott Korenbaum, from various actions. Those requests are denied without prejudice to raising them in the first instance before Magistrate Judge Lehrburger, to whom this case remains assigned for general pretrial purposes. Finally, Lastra objects to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger's June 6, 20 18, Order, which required Korenbaum to "mail Plaintiff's file to Plaintiff's mailing address by June 20, 2018," unless the parties otherwise agreed on a date for Lastra to pick up the file. Dkt. No. 118. Magistrate Judge Lehrburge r also determined that Korenbaum need only provide printouts of email exchanges with Evan Jaffe, who is counsel for certain defendants, and need not disclose the "program used to compose the emails." Id. Lastra has failed to explain why Mag istrate Judge Lehrburger's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Lastra objects that he did not have the opportunity to respond to Korenbaum's letter dated June 6, 2018, but the letter was not a motion th at required a response, and a magistrate judge can deal with straightforward discovery issues based on correspondence that is copied to all the parties. If Lastra was displeased with Magistrate Judge Lehrburger's Order, he could have raised the issue with Magistrate Judge Lehrburger, and indeed can still do so. The objection to the June 6, 2018, Order is overruled. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 6/18/18) (yv)
|
|
Filing
113
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Accordingly, the plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's April 24, 2018, Order are overruled. Finally, the plaintiff make a series of additional requests to this Court, such as to order defense counse l to produce various documents. See Objection at 14-15. Any requests for judicial assistance should be made to the Magistrate Judge in the first instance because the pre-trial proceedings in this case have been referred to the Magistrate Judge. There fore, other than the objections to the Magistrate Judge's April 24, 2018, Order, which are overruled, any other requests are denied without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to raise them with the Magistrate Judge, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 5/15/2018) (ap)
|
|
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court is confident that the Magistrate Judge will be able to deal with the positions of the parties in a reasonable and sensitiv e way. The Court appreciates that the schedule set by the Magistrate Judge will need to be adjusted because of the delay occasioned by these objections. The Court leaves further scheduling to the Magistrate Judge. Korenbaum also asked that the withd rawal motion be heard by another Magistrate Judge so that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger would not hear the matters in the disqualification motion and then continue to preside over the case. There is no basis for transfer at this time. Disqualification may be raised if matters addressed in the withdrawal motion provide a basis for disqualification. Making a motion for withdrawal should not be the basis for disqualification or to transfer the motion. The objections are overruled. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/26/2018) (mml)
|
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.
