The opinion of the court was delivered by: IAN LEVIN, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINDING INTRODUCTION
On July 1, 2004, this matter was referred by the District Judge
to a Magistrate Judge*fn1 "for resolution of the current
issue on whether or not there has been good faith compliance with
the court's last order on the part of the plaintiff to make a
realistic assessment of the documents intended to be used at
trial, if a trial were to be had in this case." (Referral order
and minute order of Hon. Charles P. Kocoras.)
Defendants maintains that as of July 1, 2004 (the date of the
referral), and to this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with
Judge Kocoras's order requiring Plaintiff to identify the
documents upon which he intends to rely upon at trial. Plaintiff
claims he has made good faith compliance with Judge Kocoras's
June 9, 2004 order. Background
The case herein is premised on Plaintiff's allegation that
Defendants based the main character in the movie Hardball on
him. Plaintiff therefore alleges inter alia claims for
defamation, false light invasion of privacy, false endorsement,
false advertising, commercial disparagement, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment. (Defs.'
Submission at 1-2.)
4/9/04: Defendants served contention interrogatories (including
request for documents) on Plaintiff to determine the factual
basis for his contentions. (Defs.' Submission at 2; Defs.' Ex.
2A.)
5/10/04: In Plaintiff's response, he failed to identify any
documents. (Defs.' Submission at 2; Defs.' Ex. 2B at 4.)
5/04: Defendants unsuccessfully tried to resolve this issue
with Plaintiff. (Defs.' Submission at 2; Defs.' Exs. 2C-2F.)
6/7/04: Defendants filed a motion to compel. (Defs.' Submission
at 2; Defs.' Ex. 2.)
6/9/04: Judge Kocoras heard the motion to compel and ordered
Plaintiff to identify the documents upon which he intended to
rely on at trial (by about June 23, 2004). (Defs.' Submission at
2; Defs.' Ex. 3 at 6-7, 8, 9.)
6/24/04: Plaintiff served supplemental responses on Defendants
but did not identify those documents he would use at trial.
(Defs.' Submission at 2-3; Defs.' Ex. 4.) Instead, he identified
virtually every document produced in the pending litigation by
using broad descriptions of categories of documents. (Id.) See
e.g., Interrogatory No. 2 (in responding to Plaintiff's
contention that Defendants had made misrepresentations in
connection with the advertising of Hardball, Plaintiff set
forth a page of broad descriptions of categories of documents and
noted that the documents included "all documents containing
descriptions of the movie Hardball." (Defs.' Ex. 4 at 10.)
Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter stating that the
supplemental responses did not comply with Judge Kocoras order
because he was "required . . . to identify with particularity the
documents which you contend support your contentions." (Defs.'
Submission at 3; Defs' Ex. 5.) 6/25/04: In response to Defendants' June 24, 2004 letter,
Plaintiff wrote to Defendants indicating that he had complied
with Judge Kocoras's order even though he stated that since the
interrogatories "requested identification of all documents that
relate to the various contentions-not the much narrower request
for identification of documents that [Plaintiff] ...