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

..,_._.-MiE..m._l.HHh_...—. m—.%m..—»... .“..._.#—*— ·-»——- %%—
Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 52 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 1 of 2 I
I
l
F ELSE I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT p
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT y '
. ZUUU MAY 2`| ID 3= I`]
DUANE ZIEMBA = U.S. DISTRICT COURT
= PRISONER §··§A?*<`!`E"0R{J, CT.
v. : Case No. 3:02CVl609(AWT)(DFM)
MARGARET CLARK, et al. E
RULING AND ORDER
Pending are plaintiff's renewed motion to compel and _
defendants’ motion for extension of time. X
By order filed April 8, 2004, defendants were to respond to i
all outstanding discovery within thirty days. Defendants now [
seek, gggg ggg tggg, a thirty—day extension of time to complete
and serve their responses. Defendants’ motion [doc. #47] is Q
GRANTED.
Plaintiff has renewed his motion to compel production to his
mother of the videotape of the incident giving rise to this l
action. Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that release i
of the videotape to plaintiff’s mother might have an adverse x
impact on institutional security and violate privacy interests of
correctional personnel. In addition, defendants express concern y
that the videotape might be copied and disseminated. é
In his prior motion, plaintiff indicated that he seeks {
production of the videotape primarily to ensure that the X
#
videotape is not altered or lost. Although he states that i
N
- I
, 1
YTTT_Yi%T_Yh%T_Yh%T_YhTT-Yi%a—Y—%`—T_"—T""5_"`vvvv—s—~——e—ee-e.er;l_i__g_g____Y_55_*
-







I
I
_ vw Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 52 Filed 05/27/2004 Page 2 of 2
defendants have a practice of “losing” videotapes, plaintiff I
provides no support for this statement. Plaintiff also states i
that he may need to review the tape to respond to a motion for
summary judgment or to prepare for trial. The defendants'
attorney states that he is maintaining a copy of the videotape
and notes that he would produce a copy to any attorney retained I
by plaintiff in the future. He also represents that he will E
submit a copy of the tape in support of any motion for summary U i
judgment defendants might file in the future. Q
Plaintiff’s motion to compel [doc. #45] is DENIED. Counsel I
for the defendants is directed to maintain and preserve the I
videotape. Should plaintiff need to review the videotape to
prepare any motions or responses, he is directed to contact the
defendants’ attorney who will make arrangements for plaintiff to I
view the videotape. i
SO ORDEEED this 27* day of May,f 04, at ar ford,
x
Connecticut. I] f if ffA)67;
. » x/rr I
I I
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I
2
I
I
I
I
_____________________ I