Free Order to Show Cause - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02166-JCH

Document 130

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DUANE ZIEMBA Plaintiff v. JOHN ARMSTRONG, ET AL Defendants : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-01-cv-2166 (JCH) DECEMBER 9, 2005

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE By Motion dated November 29, 2005 [Dkt. No. 127], the plaintiff moved to hold the defendants (sic) in contempt for failure to provide him with defendants' version of the Pretrial Memorandum. Defendant DeGray replied on November 29, 2005 [Dkt. No. 129]. In that reply the defendant states: "The plaintiff is wrong in asserting that the trial memoradum was due on or before November 1, 2005. In fact, the memorandum was ordered to be filed by December 1, 2005 (see Dkt. # 113)" (sic). Objection (Dkt. No. 129). Indeed, it is defendant, or actually his counsel, who is wrong. First of all, the Pro Se Pretrial Order is at Dkt. No. 111. Further, it provides: "Defendant(s) will provide its Pretrial Memorandum to Plaintiff on or before November 1, 2005." Pro Se Pretrial Order [Dkt. No. 111]. Plaintiff notes in his Motion that the defendant has not provided his pretrial memo to the plaintiff by November 1, 2005; indeed it had not been provided by November 21, 2005, the date the plaintiff prepared his motion. Therefore, defendant DeGray, and his counsel, is hereby ordered to show cause on or before December 23, 2005 why they should not be held in contempt and penalized, either by a monetary sanction or by a ruling regarding the conduct of the -1-

Case 3:01-cv-02166-JCH

Document 130

Filed 12/12/2005

Page 2 of 2

trial, including evidential sanctions or default judgment, for failure to obey the Pro Se Pretrial Order of this court directing the defendant to serve his version of the Pretrial Memo upon the plaintiff by November 1, 2005. The court notes that in his Objection, defendant DeGray states that, "by Order dated November 23, 2005, the trial of this matter has been postponed to a date yet to be determined." See Defendant's Objection [Dkt. No. 129]. The court points out to defendant and his counsel that there is nothing in the E-File Notice [Dkt. No. 126], which advised the parties that the jury selection and trial had been postponed, that in any way affected, modified, or cancelled the dates concerning the pretrial memorandum that were set in the court's Pro Se Pretrial Order [Dkt. No. 111]. SO ORDERED. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 9th day of December, 2005.

/s/ Janet C. Hall Janet C. Hall United States District Judge

-2-