Opinion
06 Civ. 13255 (LAK).
April 8, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff recently filed a motion to compel defendants to produce certain acknowledgment forms that she supposes to exist relating to a dispute concerning an alleged breach long ago of the confidentiality order in this case, to recuse the undersigned, for a change of venue pursuant to Rule 21 and 22 of this Court's Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges ("RDB"), and for a stay of proceedings pending a determination of the recusal and change of venue motions. DI 273, 274. that motion was denied by order dated March 18, 2010. DI 276. Undaunted, plaintiff has filed another motion, this one to compel disclosure of by her own former counsel of similar acknowledgment forms and, again, to recuse the undersigned, for a change of venue pursuant to Rule 21 and 22 of the RDB, and for a stay of proceedings pending a determination of the recusal and change of venue motions. DI 277.
Insofar as the new motion seeks recusal, a change of venue and a stay of proceedings, it contains nothing that was not already considered and rejected in the March 18, 2010 order. Indeed, it explicitly relies only on the grounds and supporting materials submitted on the prior motion and already rejected by the Court. It is without merit for the same reasons.
Insofar as the plaintiff seeks production by her former attorneys of acknowledgment forms that she perhaps imagines exist, it suffices to note that her former attorneys are not parties to this action which, in any case, is closed save for the defendants' supplementary proceedings to enforce their money judgment against plaintiff. She is not entitled to conduct any discovery against anyone, let alone a non-party.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion [DI 277] is denied in all respects.
SO ORDERED.