Free Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA

Document 76

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ANTHONY TORRES

v.

PRISONER Case No. 3:03CV696 (JBA) (JGM)

JOHN TROMBLY, ET AL.

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS Pending before the court are two motions for extension of time filed by the defendants and a motion to preserve videotapes filed by the plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to preserve videotapes is denied without prejudice and the motions for extension of time are granted. I. Motion to Preserve Videotapes [docs. # 64] The plaintiff asks the court to order the defendants to preserve videotapes for January 18 and 19, 2005, to enable him to file a new lawsuit. He claims the videotapes are erased every thirty days. The court has no authority to order the defendants to preserve videotapes that are unrelated to the allegations in this action. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not allege that he has made any requests to prison officials to preserve the videotapes prior to filing these motions. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice.

Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA

Document 76

Filed 09/01/2005

Page 2 of 2

II.

Motions for Extension of Time [docs. ## 69, 70] In the first motion, defendant Kindness seeks an extension of time until March

18, 2005, to respond to plaintiff's August 2004 discovery requests. In the second motion, the defendant Kindness seeks an extension of time until April 8, 2005, to respond to plaintiff's August 2004 discovery requests. The motions are granted nunc pro tunc over plaintiff's objection. Conclusion The Motion to Preserve Videotapes [doc. # 64] is DENIED without prejudice. The Motions for Extension of Time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests [docs. ## 69, 70] are GRANTED nunc pro tunc over plaintiff's objection SO ORDERED in New Haven, Connecticut, this 31st of August, 2005

/s/ Joan G. Margolis Joan G. Margolis United States Magistrate Judge