Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ig; ____ I
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 11 I
I ss? ZT is-‘= I
I U I
I ANTHONY TORRES TE *5 I
I ?. . . SQ j I
I V. PRISONER ~ I
I Case No. 3:03CV696 (JBA) (JGM) I
I JOHN TRONIBLY, ET AL.
I RULING ON PENDING NIOTIONS
Pending before the court is a motion for extension of time, a motion to compel
and a motion to preserve videotapes filed by the plaintiff. For the reasons set forth ,
below, the motion to preserve videotapes is denied and the motion to compel and for
extension of time are granted.
l. Motion to Preserve Videotages Idocs. # 61 |
The plaintiff asks the court to order the defendants to preserve videotapes for
January 1 and 2, 2005, to enable him to file new lawsuits. He claims the videotapes I
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 pIaintiff’s motion is denied.
ll. Nlotion to Compel [doc. # 56| I
l
I

X" ` - ~ ·· ·· -· -- -- -- =T-=1+¤<-2+-.



—i - — rr ·· ·· -- -7 -— T-=T¤#1r:-ze:
.... . .


. """"‘”—‘“’—l“C““““‘
i Case 3:03-cv-00696-J@ Document 65 Filed 02/01/2@ Page 2 of 3
I The plaintiff seeks to compel defendants Trombly and Kindness to respond to
{ his August 12, 2004, interrogatories and requests for production. The plaintiff has
E made a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute prior to filing this motion. On
4 September 19, 2004, the plaintiff wrote to counsel for the defendants attempting to elicit 4
E a response to the discovery requests. The defendants have not responded to the j
l motion to compel. The motion to compel is granted absent objection. Defendants
I Kindness and Trombly are directed to respond to the August 12, 2004, interrogatories
f and requests for production on or before February 25, 2005.
“ Ill Motion for Extension Time ldoc. # 59]
The plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline for completing discovery set i
forth in the court's scheduling order filed on June 29, 2004. Because the court has
issued an order directing the defendants to respond to plaintiffs discovery requests on
or before February 25, 2005, the court will extend the time for completion of discovery
until February 25, 2005.
Conclusion \
The plaintiffs Motion to Compel [doc. # 56] is GRANTED absent objection.
Defendants Kindness and Trombly are directed to respond to the August 12, 2004, Q
interrogatories and requests for production on or before February 25, 2005. The
Motion to Preserve Videotapes [doc. # 61] is DENIED. The Motion for Extension of
Time [doc. #27] to complete discovery is GRANTED in part.
1. Parties Shall Complete Discovery by February 25, 2005.
2. All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by March E
25, 2005. No pre—filing conference will be required. This
case will be deemed trial ready by September 2005. l
l

{ u ‘ P 3 of 3- `*_`—
{ Case 3ZO3·CV·OO696-J% Document 65 Filed 02/01/209% 396
I 3. lf no motions for summary judgment are filed, the parties’ - {
{ Joint Trial Memorandum shall be filed by April 25, 2005, and
{ this case will be deemed trial ready thereafter. { {
{ SO ORDERED in New Haven, Connecticut, this SI JL of January, 2005 I {
Joan §l{Margolis { {
United Stat Magistrate Judge {
{ l
J