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


File Size: 44.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: April 21, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 329 Words, 2,297 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22095/33.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 44.1 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut
.- .. a... rl.l..--..-._....._.. .._—·;-·.·».—;...___.~...—..--»»sm-I--,
I Case 3:03-cv—OO232—DFM Docurnent 33 Filed O4/18/200g)3 Eagezl FU. L I I
I ··` ‘ .·
I
I
{ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ~ I
, ma IPR I8 P 3= Bq
I ` ‘ ‘ZI?`1`I`I?i€ZT CQIJIII
BRISTOUT BOURGUIGNON : ‘p.§,¥QpQ3[]_ J.‘_
I : PRISONER `M
v. : Case No. 3:03CV232(RNC)(DFM)
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, et al. g }
RULING AND ORDER I
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to I
compel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. I
The plaintiff states that he mailed interrogatories to
defendants’ counsel on February 7, 2005. On February 23, 2005, I
counsel objected to the interrogatories because they were not
directed to an individual defendant as required by Rule 33{a).
The plaintiff claims that the defendants have failed to cooperate
in answering his discovery requests.
Rule 33(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. provides that “any party may
serve upon any other party written interrogatories .... ”
Counsel for the defendants objected to the plaintiff's
interrogatories because they were directed to John Armstrong, et
al. and not to a particular defendant. John Armstrong, et al.
is not a party to this action. Thus, the defendants’ objection
to the interrogatories did not violate the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The plaintiff's Motion to Compel [doc. # 28] is )
I
I
I
I
I
I








””F—Vrvv_tvvv—~—~————~———-»»;i_rl. C


r . l
` ,, Case 3:03-cv—OO232—DFM Document 33 Fnled O4/18/2005 Page20f2
I
2
DENIED.1 I
Y so ORDERED this day 2005, at T
Hartford, Connecticut. [ , I/U]; / {
BZEQQ F. Martinez li '
United States Magistrate Judge {
l
i
1
i
z
“—————— l
1 The court has dismissed all claims against defendants
Herbert, Armstrong, Wezner, Delaney, Brunski and Bakanowski. The
only defendants remaining in this action are Advocate Southworth
and Investigator Brito. Thus, any renewed interrogatories should
be addressed to defendants Brito and Southworth only.
2 (
!
F