Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 32.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: March 28, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 302 Words, 1,883 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/23022/48.pdf

Download Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut ( 32.8 kB)


Preview Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03-cv-00651-MRK

Document 48

Filed 03/28/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

WILLIAM E. McCARTY, Plaintiff, v. DERIVIUM CAPITAL, LLC, et al, Defendants.

: : : : : : : : :

Civil No. 3:03cv651 (MRK)

NOTICE TO PRO SE LITIGANT

The Court has recently received three letters from Plaintiff William McCarty, all dated March 22, 2005. All three letters concern the settlement discussions that Mr. McCarty recently engaged in with the Defenadants in this case. The Court advises Mr. McCarty that letters cannot be docketed and do not become part of the record. From this point on, any document filed in this case must bear a caption (see caption above) and must be accompanied by a signed statement certifying that the document has been served on all the Defendants in this case. The Court also cautions Mr. McCarty that parties are not permitted to divulge to the Court the contents of settlement discussions. Accordingly, the Court will not take any action with respect to the letters regarding Mr. McCarty's discussions with Wachovia Bank and the American Arbitration Association and these letters will not be filed as part of the record in this case. Finally, the Court will refer Mr. McCarty's letter regarding his settlement discussions with 1

Case 3:03-cv-00651-MRK

Document 48

Filed 03/28/2005

Page 2 of 2

Defendant Derivium Capital to Magistrate Judge Garfinkel who presided over the settlement discussions. The Court directs Mr. McCarty not to submit any further "confidential" correspondence regarding this case to the Court, as the Court is not permitted to engage in exparte communications ­ in other words, the Court is not permitted to communicate with one party to the exclusion of the other.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut on March 24, 2005.

2