Opinion
05 Civ. 10012 (KMK) (JCF).
February 9, 2006
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint in this case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to submit a proper authorization for the release of medical records in compliance with my Memorandum Endorsement of January 24, 2006. Defendants' counsel acknowledges receiving the authorization, although there is an apparent dispute regarding the dates on which it was sent and received. Defendants' counsel contends that his office received it on February 8, 2006 (Letter of James Mirro dated Feb. 8, 2006); plaintiff's counsel contends that it was hand-delivered on February 2, 2006. (Letter of Earl S. Ward dated Feb. 8, 2006).
At worst, the plaintiff was a day late in complying with my direction. Dismissal is a harsh sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order, and it is appropriate only in extreme circumstances. This is not such an occasion. While the plaintiff was placed on notice of her obligation, the defendants have not demonstrated that her failure to comply was long in duration, that the defendants would likely be prejudiced, that the plaintiff's interest in being heard should yield to the Court's interest in docket management, or that there is no less drastic sanction available. See Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 112-13 (2d Cir. 1998); Peart v. City of New York, 992 F.2d 458, 461 (2d Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the defendants' motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.