UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ................................................................. X 

DAVID SCHICK, 

Plaintiff, : 07 Civ. 5775 (SHS) (DF) 

-against- : ORDER "._ ,. . .._. ............._...... ........ -. .. -- . J.~.. ... ........... ...... ....... ! 

.: . . s ... , a,. 

. .,; .-,. i: ..:. . . . CRAIG APKER, as the Warden of FCI Otisville, . . 

: i 

., ,\,.,. :, 'i ,..! , . ,. i! 

TASHA R. WELCH, as the Case Manager at FCI 1; ; i .i,.,;,...: . ,,. : ............ . . : ; ,, . < : , -, :, ?. .- . , .$ . .7..>, A - ,. -* ...--- ! 

.., ;,. ~.. - , ,.. , ,. Otisville, and the DIRECTOR, Federal Bureau of : . . . .:. :. ... ' i,.< -. .,:.. ... .: .. .,.- ...... is ... I ....... Prisons, ?' % , ......... , . . , . , .I. 

. :., ..... ..;,; . , .2..;,;:3{2..fr

; ; . . 

. 1:. ..- ....... Defendants. ........ .............. . . - ., ................... :-. ..-..........-.. &....,. ..... .a 

................................................................. X 

DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: 

The Court having held a telephone conference on March 11, 2008, with plaintiff, who is 

proceeding pro se, and counsel for defendants; and plaintiff having requested an opportunity to 

take oral depositions of defendant Tasha R. Welch and third-party witness Lori Rementer, so as 

to follow up on certain responses they gave to plaintiffs previously-served written deposition 

questions, specifically responses where the deponents indicated that they either did not 

understand the questions posed, or where they did not recall the particular matter into which 

plaintiff was inquiring; and defendants having opposed plaintiffs application for further 

questioning of these deponents; the Court having now reviewed the responses of the deponents 

to plaintiffs written questions; it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs application to take oral depositions of the witnesses is denied. Plaintiff 

may, however, serve defense counsel with the following for each witness, no later than April 4, 

a. for each question to which the witness responded that she did "not 

understand" the question posed, a rephrased question, clarifying plaintiffs original 

question; and 

Case 1:07-cv-05775-SHS-DCF Document 18 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 2
b. for each question to which the witness responded that she did "not recall" 

the matter into which Plaintiff was inquiring, any documents that, in plaintiffs view, 

might refresh the witness's recollection as to that particular matter. 

2. If plaintiff timely provides such material to defense counsel, then counsel shall 

produce supplemental responses from the witnesses no later than April 25,2008. If the 

witnesses are unable to provide any further responses, they should so state. 

3. Plaintiffs time to serve and file opposition papers to defendants' pending motion 

to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, is extended to May 9, 

2008, and defendant's time to serve and file reply papers, if any, is extended to May 23,2008. 

All opposition and reply papers should be directed to Judge Stein. 

Dated: New York, New York 

March 2 1,2008 

SO ORDERED 

DEBRA FRI~EMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Copies To: 

Hon. Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J. 

Mr. David Schick, pro se 

38713-054 

FCI Otisville Sattellite 

P.O. Box 1000 

Otisville, IVY 10963- 1000 

Kristin Vassallo, Esq. 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Southern District of New York 

86 Chambers Street 

New York, NY 10007 

Case 1:07-cv-05775-SHS-DCF Document 18 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 2