-ETB Geller et al v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System et al, No. 2:2010cv00170 - Document 47 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER - The Court has reviewed Judge Boyles written Order of April 8, 2011, and finds that it does not appear to address either of these issues. In light of the plaintiffs objections, the Court therefore respectfully request s that Judge Boyle issue a further order indicating whether these motions were in fact addressed at the April 8, 2011 conference, and if so, the outcome of and basis for the Courts resolution of the motions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs 37 objections to Judge Boyles April 8, 2011 Order are denied without prejudice to renew. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/18/2011. (Coleman, Laurie)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X DEBRA GELLER and GREG GELLER, Plaintiffs, -against- MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 10-cv-170 (ADS)(ETB) NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM and ANTHONY DiFILIPPI, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: Serrins & Associates, LLC Attorneys for the plaintiffs 233 Broadway, 18th Floor New York, NY 10279 By: Alan G. Serrins, Esq. Ann B. Macadangdang, Esq., of Counsel Epstein Becker & Green, PC Attorneys for the defendants 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 By: Erin M. Carney, Esq. Traycee Ellen Klein, Esq., of Counsel SPATT, District Judge. On April 15, 2011, the plaintiffs Debra and Greg Geller filed the present objections to United States Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle s Order dated April 8, 2011. The plaintiffs assert that, at a conference held before Judge Boyle on April 8, 2011, Judge Boyle denied the plaintiffs motions (1) to compel the production of certain documents by the defendants, and (2) to extend the discovery deadline. The Court has reviewed Judge Boyle s written Order of April 8, 2011, and finds that it does not appear to address either of these issues. In light of the plaintiffs objections, the Court therefore respectfully requests that Judge Boyle issue a further order indicating whether these motions were in fact addressed at the April 8, 2011 conference, and if so, the outcome of and basis for the Court s resolution of the motions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs objections to Judge Boyle s April 8, 2011 Order are denied without prejudice to renew. SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York June 18, 2011 __/s/ Arthur D. Spatt______ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
