Taylor v. City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, 19 Civ. 6754 (KPF) -v.- ORDER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ letter motion to compel, dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. #24), and Plaintiff’s August 7, 2020 letter in opposition (Dkt. #25). Plaintiff represents that since Defendants filed their motion, he has served responses to Defendants’ first set of interrogatories and requests for document production. (Id. at 1). Thus, to the extent Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests, Defendants’ motion is moot. Although failure to respond to discovery requests can result in a waiver of objections to those discovery requests, see Star Fabrics, Inc. v. Gogo Apparel, Inc., No. 19 Misc. 144 (JMF), 2019 WL 3302610, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019) (finding that a delay of more than 100 days warranted waiver of objections), the Court does not believe such circumstances are present here, given that Plaintiff has now served responses and did not delay unreasonably. However, the parties are reminded that they must comply with the discovery deadlines set by the Court (see Dkt. #23), as well as the Local Rules and the Court’s Individual Rules. Plaintiff raises several objections to Defendants’ discovery requests. (Dkt. #25 at 1-2). The Court expects the parties to attempt to resolve discovery disputes in good faith. If the parties are unable to do so, they shall comply with Local Rule 37.2 and the Court’s Individual Rules to raise discovery disputes with the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 10, 2020 ' 4 ' New York, New York Kathe Mal. fild- KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge