Opinion
No. 02 CV 8993.
August 22, 2005
Dear Judge Kaplan:
Lateko Bank respectfully requests that the Court issue an order dismissing the 20 plaintiffs who have failed to respond to its Interrogatory 23 despite the Court's instructions that they do so or face dismissal.
In its motion for summary judgment dated May 20, 2005, Lateko Bank requested that the Court dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs who still had not responded to Interrogatory 23, which concerns whether the named plaintiff was presenting the claims of other persons in this lawsuit. On August 1, 2005, this Court ruled that "plaintiffs who have not responded to Interrogatory 23 shall complete and serve sworn answers to it within two weeks of the date of this order. Any failure to do so may result in dismissal of their claims." August 1, 2005 Order at 12. Two weeks after the Court's order was Monday, August 15, 2005.
The interrogatory states:
"If you are representing another person (including a corporation or other entity) in this litigation, in the sense that any of the damages that you are seeking are for or on behalf of another person, identify, for each such person, that person's name, address, place of incorporation (if applicable) be amount of the portion of the claim that is for such person, the basis on which you are acting for the person and all documents evidencing any agreement with the person concerning the claim in this litigation."
Notwithstanding this clear admonition, 20 plaintiffs failed to respond to Interrogatory 23 by the deadline. These plaintiffs are Granted. Case dismissed as to Does 62, 73, 109, 129, 154, 246, 258, 551, 554, 597, 614, 690, 692, 700, 704, 787, 822, 827, 872 and 891.
Interrogatory 23 is important because Lateko Bank has a right to know the identities of the real parties in interest of the claims against it in this lawsuit — particularly in view of the imminent trial of this case. The importance of obtaining answers to this interrogatory has been made evident as it has been revealed that certain plaintiffs are, in fact, presenting claims on behalf of other persons.
SO ORDERED.
The plaintiffs who still have refused to respond to Interrogatory 23, despite being ordered by the Court to do so, should now have their claims dismissed.