-MWP Ippolito v. Goord et al, No. 6:2005cv06683 - Document 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: DECISION & ORDER denying without prejudice 228 Motion to Compel. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 3/23/2012. (KAH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICHOLAS IPPOLITO, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, 05-CV-6683L v. GLENN GOORD, Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Defendants. Pending before this Court is a motion by the defendants to compel plaintiff to respond to a document entitled, Medicare Demand, which was served on April 5, 2011. (Docket # 228). The plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds of untimeliness and irrelevance. (Docket # 230). As plaintiff correctly notes, this Court set a deadline of August 29, 2008 for filing all motions to compel discovery. (Docket # 162). The pending motion was not filed until April 21, 2011. In the interim, defendants filed a summary judgment motion, which was denied without prejudice and thereafter filed another, which remains pending before the district court. (Docket ## 186, 203, 215). No explanation has been offered for the late filing, nor has leave been sought to permit the late filing. The demand relates to new reporting requirements imposed on all parties involved in a payment of a settlement, judgment or award with a medicare beneficiary after October 1, 2010. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 1395y(b)(7)-(8). See also Seger v. Tank Connection, LLC, 2010 WL 1665253, *4 (D. Neb. 2010). The requirement became effective over fifteen months before defendants served their Medicare Demand and their subsequent motion to compel. No indication exists that the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations or that judgment for plaintiff is imminent. Accordingly, defendants motion to compel (Docket # 228) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in the event that settlement negotiations commence or judgment is awarded to plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Marian W. Payson MARIAN W. PAYSON United States Magistrate Judge Dated: Rochester, New York March 23 , 2012 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.
