1C28rdasc1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK2 ------------------------------x23 MONIQUE DA SILVA MOORE, et al.,34 Plaintiffs,45 v. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)56 PUBLICIS GROUPE and MSL GROUP,6 Conference7 Defendants.78 ------------------------------x89 New York, N.Y.9 February 8, 201210 3:00 p.m.1011 Before:1112 HON. ANDREW J. PECK1213 Magistrate Judge13141415 APPEARANCES15161617 SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER LLP17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs18 BY: JANETTE L. WIPPER (tel.)18 DEEPIKA BAINS19 SIHAM NURHUSSEIN192020 JACKSON LEWIS LLP21 Attorneys for Defendants21 BY: JEFFREY W. BRECHER22 BRETT M. ANDERS222323 ALSO PRESENT:2424 PAUL J. NEALE25 DAVID BASKIN25SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300
2C28rdasc1 (Case called)2 THE COURT: We have the major issue of e-discovery3 protocols and the like. Also, I got this morning a letter from 4 the plaintiffs asking for permission to make a motion for5 sanctions. I guess we will deal with that first.6 However, I suggest, since lead counsel seems to be out7 of state, perhaps, that you all talk to the New York office a8 lot more, because we generally don't do discovery motions as9 motions. If all you're asking for is money and you want to10 make a motion for sanctions and I'll get to it when I get to11 it, which may well be when discovery otherwise is over, feel12 free.13 In addition, in general it is Second Circuit law that14 I can't stop you from making any motion you want at any point15 after a pre-motion conference. I certainly am not giving16 plaintiffs in this case, or either side in this case, although17 it was plaintiffs who requested it, the ability to file motions18 in the future without pre-motion conferences. I just don't see19 how that is consistent with our local practice. Maybe somebody20 on the plaintiffs' side could try to explain that to me.21 MS. BAINS: Your Honor, we are OK with that ruling,22 but we requested that because of the numerous discovery23 violations that have been happening --24 THE COURT: My question is, why are you trying to25 practice law the San Francisco way instead of the New York way?SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300
3C28rdasc1 MS. BAINS: We are not asking to do that. We respect2 the Court's decision.3 THE COURT: That's what the letter says. You want to4 be relieved of all pre-motion conferences, isn't that what your5 letter asks for?6 MS. BAINS: Given the circumstances of this case, yes.7 THE COURT: Frankly, given the circumstances in the8 case, all the more reason why there should be pre-motion9 conferences. Otherwise, it will be five years before discovery10 is concluded, because each of you doesn't like what the other11 is doing. If we do it the formal motion way for everything you12 want to do, there will be at least a month delay while a motion13 is filed and responded to. So, I'm having a little bit of14 trouble seriously understanding what it is that you think15 you're doing.16 MS. WIPPER: This is Jeanette Wipper. Your Honor, if17 I may address the Court. We are not asking to not comply with18 your individual practices. The issue that we are dealing with19 and we are trying to address --20 THE COURT: Ms. Wipper, with all due respect, excuse21 me. Let me read what you wrote me, page 8 of your letter, last22 sentence on the page "Plaintiffs further respectfully request23 to be relieved of the obligation to file pre-motion letters and24 appear for pre-motion conferences before filing future motions25 to compel in this matter." That is directly contrary toSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300