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

I I ` Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 66 Filed 01/24/2005 Page 1 of 2 I
I
I I
I
I I I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `O``"` °“ I I
I r I I
= DUANE ZIEMBA ¤ IIIIII III/IIIIIII 2I`I A IU? I
Z PRISONER j;, H%_ I I
I V. E Case No. QQURT I I
* MARGARET CLARK, et al. I H IIULIIK I I
I I
I RULING AND ORDER I I
I Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendant Clark to I I
I file non—evasive responses to two interrogatories dated August I I
I 25, 2003. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is I I
I denied. I I
First, Ziemba objects to the response to interrogatory 3, I I
which asks for the date upon which defendant Clark was served I I
with the complaint in Ziemba v. Armstrong, 3:98cv2344 I I
(JCH)(hereinafter "the other lawsuit"). He states that the I I
response is important to establish his claim in this case that I I
remarks made by defendant Clark on October 6, 1999 were made in I I
retaliation for being named as a defendant in the other lawsuit. I I
Defendant Clark has stated that she does not recall the date upon I I
which she was served. I
Service was effected on defendant Clark by mail. The court I I
assumes that Ziemba seeks the date defendant Clark received the I I
service packet. Although that precise date is not available in I
the court records, other obtainable information suggests that the I I
date would not assist Ziemba. Ziemba did not file an amended II
complaint adding defendant Clark as a defendant in the other I
I
I I
I
I I



-



J Ld I- · Case 3:02jcv-01609-AWT Document 66 Filed 01/24/2005 Page20f2
I I I
I I I
* lawsuit until July 24, 2000, eight months after the incident that l -
! gives rise to this case. He did not return the required % y
i documentation to enable the U.S. Marshal to effect service until i \
V October 2000, one year after the incident. Thus, defendant Clark E i
would not have received notice that she was named as a defendant g W
in the other lawsuit until more than a year after the incident E [
about which the plaintiff complains in this case. Thus, the a ;
exact date upon which defendant Clark was served in the other W \
lawsuit could not show any retaliatory motive on October 6, 1999. E i
In any event, Clark has answered the interrogatory. E i
In the second interrogatory, Ziemba asks defendant Clark to 5 [
identify all persons who made restraint observations on October 6 E ‘
and 7, 1999. Defendant Clark responded that the information was E K
' E
available to Ziemba in his medical file. Ziemba has submitted 1
this information in response to defendants’ motion for summary i a
judgment. (Qs; Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 25.) Thus, he i I
already has the information he seeks. { '
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff's motion to !
compel [doc. #55] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 21* day of Jiyééky, 2U6§%7gt Hartford,
Connecticut. } /. . ;
' “5m
UNITED smawss Masismaarr Jones
I
2 I
I
I I
I
' l
I I