Opinion
16-CV-4762 (LTS)(KNF)
10-02-2019
AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. RAPPAPORT HERTZ CHERSON ROSENTHAL, P.C., WILLIAM RAPPAPORT, STEVEN M. HERTZ, ELIOT J. CHERSON, MICHAEL C. ROSENTHAL, and BRANKO RAKAMARIC, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Defendant Branko Rakamaric ("Rakamaric"), proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 26(c)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see Docket Entry No. 155. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requires that a motion for a protective order "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Rakamaric's motion does not include the requisite certification.
Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court provides that, except for letter-motions permitted by Local Civil Rule 7.1(d) or as otherwise permitted by the Court, all motions must include, inter alia, "[s]upporting affidavits an exhibits thereto containing any factual information and portions of the record necessary for the decision of the motion." Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3). Rakamaric failed to file an affidavit(s) containing the factual information necessary for the decision on the motion. Rakamaric's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)and Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court, warrants the denial of his motion. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear, a litigant's pro se status does not exempt the litigant from complying with applicable rules of procedural and substantive law. See Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).
For the reasons set forth above, Rakamaric's motion for a protective order, Docket Entry No. 155, is denied. Dated: New York, New York
October 2, 2019
SO ORDERED:
/s/_________
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE