From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BOVE v. ARMORY

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 1, 2007
06 Civ. 2163(PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2007)

Opinion

06 Civ. 2163(PKC).

November 1, 2007


ORDER


I have two versions of Mr. Meyer's letter of October 26, 2007. Mr. Meyer called my Chambers today and asked for the outcome of his request for an adjournment of tomorrow's conference. When he was told that Chambers had no such letter request, he faxed a second version of the October 26 letter which included a request for an adjournment of tomorrow's conference because "[t]here are several outstanding issues that make a pre-trial conference premature, including three outstanding issues previously submitted for Your Honor's intervention." No such request is contained in the version faxed on October 26.

The conference is not premature. The outstanding requests are the reasons I scheduled it. If the issues had been resolved, I would not need the conference.

Mr. Meyer should be prepared to begin tomorrow's session with his explanation on the record of his materially different versions of the October 26 letter.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

BOVE v. ARMORY

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Nov 1, 2007
06 Civ. 2163(PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2007)
Case details for

BOVE v. ARMORY

Case Details

Full title:FRANK BOVE, Plaintiff, v. JAN ARMORY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 1, 2007

Citations

06 Civ. 2163(PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2007)