Opinion
No. 02 Civ. 8993 (LAK).
February 8, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiffs request reconsideration of my order, dated January 13, 2005, granted the unopposed motion of defendant Lateko to compel discovery of Gray Clare. In the letter requesting reconsideration, plaintiffs argue that the Court should reopen the matter because the parties had agreed to a briefing schedule with respect to the motion to compel, but did not bother to inform the Court of it. Lateko acknowledges that there was such an agreement.
This sort of behavior is both unprofessional and an imposition by both sides on the Court. The Court should not be placed in the position of ruling on the matter in the belief that it has received all submissions that will be made only to be asked to revisit the subject because, unbeknownst to the Court, the parties had agreed to a schedule other than that provided by the rules. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Court grants reconsideration and has taken into account the answering papers belatedly filed by plaintiffs as well as Lateko's letter replying thereto.
While it appears that all now agree that Gray Clare is not in fact a plaintiff in this case (although he is president of OSRecovery, Inc.), the fact remains that his attorneys repeatedly referred to him as a plaintiff and Lateko relied upon those references in the unique circumstances here, in which the names of the individual plaintiffs have been filed under seal. Indeed, plaintiffs sought relief from the Court in behalf of Mr. Clare on the premise that he was a plaintiff. Their attempt to excuse this on the ground that Mr. Clare believed he was a plaintiff at the relevant times is just plain silly, as the references and representations were made by counsel who quite plainly knew the truth. In all the circumstances, Mr. Clare is estopped to deny, at least for purposes of amenability to party discovery, that he is a plaintiff. Accordingly, on reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original decision.
SO ORDERED.