United States District Court, D. New Jersey
August 24, 2005.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: G. DONALD HANEKE, Magistrate Judge
LETTER OPINION ORIGINAL TO CLERK OF THE COURT
This matter is presently before the Court on a motion seeking
summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
A closer examination of the voluminous papers submitted by the
parties, however, reveals that the motion is really the latest
episode in a discovery dispute that has persisted for a number of
It is apparent that plaintiff prepared numerous taped
recordings of his interactions with the defendants and numerous
handwritten transcripts of those recordings. He also relied at
his deposition on a briefcase full of documents.
In January, 2005, I ordered plaintiff to supply copies of the
recordings. Instead, he has evidently supplied enhanced or edited
versions and he has failed to produce the documents he relied
upon at his deposition and the handwritten transcripts of the
tapes he made.
Although the defendants are understandably frustrated at
plaintiff's recalcitrance, the law does not permit the extreme sanction of dismissal at this juncture. The Court must attempt
other lesser sanctions in order to compel plaintiff's compliance.
Accordingly, I direct plaintiff to supply all tapes,
transcripts and other materials made by plaintiff or relied upon
by him during his deposition within 15 days of the date of this
order to defense counsel. I also award counsel fees to defense
counsel in an amount to be determined after submission by counsel
of an affidavit as to the amount sought within 10 days. Plaintiff
may object only as to the amount sought within 5 days thereafter.
If this order is not complied with, defense may renew its
As to the unanswered requests to admit served by defendants in
March, 2005, those requests are deemed admitted by the language
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.