Opinion
18-CV-11325 (VSB) (OTW)
05-10-2022
KRISHNA DASS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ONA T. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
The Court has reviewed ECF 129 and 129-4 (Exhibit D of the parties' 5/6/22 Joint Agenda) and construes those submissions as Plaintiff's request to compel compliance with her post-deposition document demands. The Court's rulings on the 39 individual document demands still in dispute are indicated in the attached Exhibit A, which is an annotated version of ECF 129-4.
The Court spent an inordinate amount of time combing through the minutiae of the parties' document discovery disputes, even after numerous in-person and telephonic conferences concerning the breadth and scope of Plaintiff's requested discovery. The majority of these requests sought discovery that was not proportional to the needs of the case. If the parties continue to require Court intervention at this level to resolve their voluminous discovery disputes, the Court may enter an Order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5) requiring expenses paid for failures to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C) (“If the motion is granted in part in part and denied in part, the court may issue an protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion”).
For the requests for which limited production or review was directed, Defendants shall make rolling productions and must complete productions by June 6, 2022.
SO ORDERED.