Boyce v. Allied Interstate

This folder examines issues and matters specific to Allied Interstate f/k/a Coldata and its collectors and debt collection issues and cases involving Allied Interstate f/k/a Coldata.
Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Boyce v. Allied Interstate

Post by David A. Szwak »

Boyce v. Allied Interstate,
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2160204, W.D.N.Y., Aug 25, 2005

United States District Court,
W.D. New York.
George BOYCE, Plaintiff(s),
v.
ALLIED INTERSTATE, et al., Defendant(s).
No. CV05-1596 DGT WDW.
Aug. 25, 2005.

ORDER

WALL, Magistrate J.
*1 Before the court are the plaintiff's motion for a protective order and the defendant's cross motion to compel. The underlying issue is production of an audio tape of a telephone conversation between the plaintiff and a representative of the defendant, recorded prior to the start of the litigation. The plaintiff seeks an order permitting him to turn over the tape after the defendant's deposition, and the defendant seeks an order compelling immediate production of the tape as part of initial disclosure. The plaintiff's order is granted and the defendant's cross motion is denied as moot.
The plaintiff has not refused to produce the tape, but merely seeks to control the timing of the production. This court agrees with the reasoning in Poppo v. AON Risk Servs., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17588 (S.D.N.Y.2000), and with the ruling entered by Magistrate Judge J. Orenstein in CV 04-5410, and grants the plaintiff's motion for a protective order allowing him to withhold production of the tape until the completion of the defendant's deposition.
The parties are advised that any letters seeking court intervention must, in the future, be docketed as letter motions, not simply as letters, or they will be rejected.
SO ORDERED:
W.D.N.Y.,2005.
Boyce v. Allied Interstate
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2160204 (W.D.N.Y.)
Post Reply

Return to “Allied Interstate f/k/a Coldata”