Antolini v. McCloskey
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-09038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antolini v. McCloskey, Judge Aaron denied reconsideration but struck four privileged interrogatories and required a replacement response.
Dino Antolini and the defendants, particularly their discovery requests and the parties’ initial disclosures.
What happened
In Antolini v. McCloskey, Dino Antolini asked the court to reconsider part of an earlier order allowing the defendants to serve up to ten questions about allegations that he had committed fraud on the court.
The court found that Antolini did not meet the strict standard for reconsideration. It also found that four of the defendants’ questions—Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, and 9—implicated attorney-client privilege.
The court denied Antolini’s motion for reconsideration, struck those four interrogatories, and ordered him to answer a replacement question for Interrogatory 9. Judge Aaron also directed the parties to use a properly filed letter motion for any further relief and directed Antolini’s counsel to meet and confer about initial disclosures.
The detailed version
- Antolini v. McCloskey · No. 1:19-cv-09038
- George Daniels
- June 29, 2020
Background
The court considered Dino Antolini’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of its June 10, 2020 order that allowed the defendants to serve no more than ten interrogatories—written questions used in discovery—about the “fraud on the court” allegations discussed during an earlier telephone conference.
Analysis
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration under Rule 59. It stated that reconsideration generally is not warranted unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked. The court found that Antolini had not met that standard.
The court separately reviewed the interrogatories served by the defendants and found that Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9 implicated the attorney-client privilege, which protects certain confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
Ruling
The court denied Antolini’s motion for reconsideration. It struck Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9 and ordered Antolini not to answer them. In place of Interrogatory No. 9, the court required Antolini to answer whether, before filing the complaint, he had communicated with Stuart H. Finkelstein about the action.
The court also directed the defendants to seek any requested relief through a properly filed letter motion under the court’s individual rules. It directed Antolini’s counsel to promptly meet and confer with defense counsel about initial disclosures and try to reach a compromise. Judge Stewart D. Aaron signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.