Antolini v. McCloskey

S.D. New York

Antolini v. McCloskey

DecidedJune 29, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-09038

StatusUnknown

This text of Antolini v. McCloskey (Antolini v. McCloskey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antolini v. McCloskey, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: . DATE FILED: —_ 6/29/2020 Dino Antolini, ee Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-09038 (GBD) (SDA) -against- ORDER SCHEDULING Amy McCloskey, et al., TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) of that portion of the Court’s Order of June 10, 2020 which granted Defendants leave to serve no more than ten interrogatories upon the Plaintiff addressed to the “fraud on the court” allegations discussed during the June 10 telephone conference. “[T]he standard for granting [a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met this strict standard, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds that certain of the interrogatories served by Defendants (see ECF No. 41-3) impinge on the attorney-client privilege. Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 are stricken and Plaintiff shall not respond to those interrogatories. In place of Interrogatory No. 9, Plaintiff shall respond to the following interrogatory instead: “Prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action, did you communicate with Stuart H. Finkelstein related to this Action?”

To the extent that Defendants seek relief from the Court (see ECF No. 42), they shall do so by properly filed Letter Motion pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to promptly meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel with respect to the initial disclosures and endeavor to reach a compromise. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 29, 2020 List A. STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: . DATE FILED: —_ 6/29/2020 Dino Antolini, ee Plaintiff, 1:19-cv-09038 (GBD) (SDA) -against- ORDER SCHEDULING Amy McCloskey, et al., TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) of that portion of the Court’s Order of June 10, 2020 which granted Defendants leave to serve no more than ten interrogatories upon the Plaintiff addressed to the “fraud on the court” allegations discussed during the June 10 telephone conference. “[T]he standard for granting [a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked.” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met this strict standard, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds that certain of the interrogatories served by Defendants (see ECF No. 41-3) impinge on the attorney-client privilege. Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 are stricken and Plaintiff shall not respond to those interrogatories. In place of Interrogatory No. 9, Plaintiff shall respond to the following interrogatory instead: “Prior to the filing of the Complaint in this Action, did you communicate with Stuart H. Finkelstein related to this Action?”

To the extent that Defendants seek relief from the Court (see ECF No. 42), they shall do so by properly filed Letter Motion pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to promptly meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel with respect to the initial disclosures and endeavor to reach a compromise. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 29, 2020 List A. STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Antolini v. McCloskey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antolini-v-mccloskey-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack