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

ARCTIC Case 3:03-cv-00696-J BA Document 16 Filed O1/06/2004 Page 1 of 2
I 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f I
ir r;· ~~—
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I I" Ir IJ
isa 5 Q3 Fit WM
ANTHONY TONRNS I}.? I1 1 I
I>RIsoNER
V. CASE NO. 3:03C\/696 (JBA) (JCM) I
JOHN TROMBLY, ET AL. I
I
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
The plaintiff Anthony Torres, filed this civil rights action Ig sg and m t I
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pending is a motion for protective order and a motion for order filed I
by the plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied. I
I. Motion for Protective Order Idoc. # 6| I
The plaintiff has tiled a motions entitled "Plaintiffs Application for Protective Order. The I
plaintiff seeks a court order that the defendants make photocopies of certain documents in his I
possession. He claims that he needs to Send the copies of the documents to the defendants pursuant
to Rule 26(a)(l)(B) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He alleges that he cannot trust the I
employees at Northern Correctional Institution to make the copies and keep the documents
confidential. I
The plaintiff does not allege that any defendant servedla request for production of documents
_ on him. Rule 26(a)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P., which governs initial disclosures of certain information and
documents to an opposing party, does not apply to "an action brought without counsel by a person in
custody of. . . a state, or a subdivision of a state." Rule 26(a)(l)(E)(iii), Fed. R. Civ. P. Because I I
the plaintiff is not required to make initial disclosures of documents to the defendants, his request
I
I
I I
i I



Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA Document 16 Filed O1/06/2004 Page 2 of 2 I
I
I I
for "protective orders" is denied as moot. I I
II. Motion for Order ldoc. # 7| I
The plaintiff seeks an order directing the United States Marshal to serve the defendants with I
a copy of the first amended complaint. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on I
September 24, 2003. Thus, the motion for service of the first amended complaint is denied as moot. I
If after its review of the allegations in the second amended complaint, the court determines the Q
second amended complaint shall be served on the defendants, the court will issue the necessary I I
order directing the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint. I I
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Protective Order [doc. # 6] and Motion for
Order [doc. # 7] are DENIED as moot. I
SO ORDERED this Qhay of , 2005, at New Haven, Connecticut. I
I
I
@• . Margolis I
I =• States Magistrate Judge ·
I
I I
I I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I ;
{
I
2 I
I l
I I
I I
II