From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Houraney v. Town of Riverhead

United States District Court, E.D. New York
May 4, 2006
CV 04-2262 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2006)

Opinion

CV 04-2262 (ADS)(ARL).

May 4, 2006


ORDER


By letter application dated May 2, 2006, the plaintiffs seek to "uphold [their] objection to the [defendants'] Expert Disclosure" and demand that the defendants not be given any additional time for disclosure. Prior to submitting a discovery motion of this nature, counsel for the plaintiffs was required to confer with counsel for the defendants in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute. See Local Rule 37.3(a). There is no indication that counsel made any effort to contact the defendants. Moreover, there is no application before the court for an extension of the discovery deadline, and thus, the plaintiffs' objection to such an extension is not ripe. The motion is, therefore, denied with leave to renew once the parties have attempted to resolve the discovery dispute.


Summaries of

Houraney v. Town of Riverhead

United States District Court, E.D. New York
May 4, 2006
CV 04-2262 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2006)
Case details for

Houraney v. Town of Riverhead

Case Details

Full title:MARK HOURANEY and NORTHEAST HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: May 4, 2006

Citations

CV 04-2262 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2006)