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

..... ......?.?é—- - ‘ *·*·* “-_“"——T—_-—_l*_"_— I I I I
Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 64 Filed 11/10/2004 Page 1 of 2 ’
. , ·` I `
I
UNIDTIESARSITAIEOSFIEIIENINEICCTIICCUOTURI FILED I
I I
`ZHHII NOV I0 ID b: UL;
DUANE ZIEMBA I 0- I I
.. ; $13§2$?EIIIIII*II*I*§II%°I?“I I
MARGARET CLARK, et al. I I I
RULING AND ORDER I I
Plaintiff has filed three motions in response to defendants’ I
motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not responded to I I
any of the motions. I
First, plaintiff asks the court to order defendants to I
arrange for him to view the videotape filed in support of their
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asks that he be able to I
have the tape stopped and rewound during the viewing and that he I
be permitted to take notes. Plaintiff’s motion [doc. #63] is I
GRANTED. Within twenty days from the date of this order,
defendants shall arrange for plaintiff to view the videotape with I
the ability to have the tape stopped and rewound and the ability I
to take notes. I ,
Second, plaintiff seeks an extension of time, until thirty I
days from the date he views the videotape, to file his response
to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion I
[doc. #62] is GRANTED. I I
Finally, plaintiff argues that defendants’ certification on I I
the motion for summary judgment is incorrect. He states that I I
I
I I
I I
Tm?%Ei?y}%@Q7mkGEi*?3§Q{wmh2Eiw?EETQ7}§2Ei??ETTE7:§2EawwFEQQ?}


I IIII`
_%i`§_D*§?¤i??E§TE?}h2Eiw?E$Q{wm§2Ei??EiTQ7:§2Ei??3TQxw}h3Ei*?
Essssssssrtrazzaszsssseeaassaestateszsesagag;;e;e;;;;;¥;s;s;g§;g;;;§;;;;;i;;;;;;;;§;;;;Q;;;g;;;g;;;;;;;€§2;iZiZi§jEi iiixi



I
_ .. Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 64 Fi|ed11/10/2004 Page20f2
I I
although defendants certified that they served a copy of their I
motion for summary judgment on him, he did not receive a copy of I I
the videotape. Plaintiff asks the court to order that he receive I I
a copy of the videotape or that he be permitted to view the tape. I
The court previously has denied plaintiff’s requests to possess a I
copy of the videotape but has granted plaintiff’s motion to view I
the videotape. In light of this order, plaintiff’s request for a I
copy of the videotape [doc. #61] is DENIED. I
In conclusion, plaintiff's motion seeking a copy of the I I
videotape filed in support of defendants’ motion for summary I I
judgment [doc. #61] is DENIED and his motions for extension of I
time [doc. #62] and an order directing that he be permitted to I
view the videotape [doc. #63] are GRANTED. Defendants shall I
arrange for plaintiff to view the videotape within twenty (20) I
days from the date of this order and shall permit plaintiff to I I
have the tape stopped and rewound during the viewing. Plaintiff I
shall be permitted to take notes during the viewing of the I
videotape. Finally, plaintiff shall file his opposition to I
defendants’ motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days I
from the date he views the videotape. I I
SO ORDERED this 10* day of Nove er, 2004, at Hartford, I I
Connecticut. 1 /2f I RI/yi . I I
E I
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I I
I 1
a 2 I I
. I
ii an I