Winfield v. Derasso

Full title: JOAQUIN R. WINFIELD, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT DERASSO, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2009

CV 07-4570 (TCP) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009)

Opinion

CV 07-4570 (TCP) (ARL).

November 16, 2009

ORDER

ARLENE LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge

Before the court is the pro se plaintiff's letter application dated November 3, 2009, essential seeking reconsideration of this court's October 27, 2009 order, which directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's interrogatories to the extent that the interrogatories did not seek privileged information. The defendants had objected to certain of the interrogatories because the interrogatories sought information about complaints filed against correction officers not named as defendants in this suit. The plaintiff now argue that the "allegations of privilege must fail because they are alone in clear discord with Local Civil Rules 26.2(a)(1)(2)(A) and (c)." The Local Civil Rule identified by the plaintiff requires a party asserting the privilege to provide the requesting party with a privilege log. Although the defendant had mentioned that the information being sought was privileged, the court had determined that information concerning complaints filed against correction officers not named in the suit was irrelevant, and thus, there is no basis for altering the court's October 27^th order.

The parties are reminded that all outstanding discovery must be exchanged by November 30, 2009 and the proposed joint pretrial order must be filed by December 18, 2009. The case will be returned to the District Judge upon receipt of the pretrial order.

SO ORDERED: