Opinion
No. 04 Civ. 1648 (DFE).
January 26, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 6, 2004, my law clerk Elyse Entin held a telephone conference with Mr. Kreinces and Mr. Till. She relayed my directions concerning plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion. In short, the parties should proceed with discovery. After discovery is completed, defendant will have 14 days to serve papers opposing the summary judgment motion on the merits. If both sides want a settlement conference, they should call me near the close of discovery and (a) schedule a settlement conference and (b) postpone the deadline for opposing summary judgment.
Since then, the only new development is that defendant's principal had emergency surgery and will not be deposed until February. Nevertheless, by letter dated January 19, 2005, Mr. Kreinces asks me to hold a conference. He avers that, at a conference, "it will readily be seen that there is no issue of fact requiring further discovery." By letter dated January 24, Mt. Till responds that further depositions are "absolutely necessary prior to any dispositive motions and/or settlement discussions occurring."
I adhere to my prior directions. I also note that, in July 2004, I sent both attorneys my Standing Order for Discovery Disputes. A dispute such as this is a discovery dispute. Therefore, Mr. Kreinces should have followed my Standing Order and submitted this dispute in a joint letter. If there are further disputes regarding discovery, the attorneys must follow my Standing Order.