Timothy Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corporation

Filing 178

ORDER Denying 177 Request For Appointment of Special Master signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/28/2010. (Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 TIMOTHY CRAYTON 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, "Plaintiff's objection to the May 5, 18 2010 Court Order and: Request for Appointment of Special Master." (Doc. 177 at pg.1). In this 19 document, Plaintiff indicates that he disagrees with this Court's order issued on May 5, 2010, 20 wherein the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Quash a Subpoena issued by Defendant 21 Rochester Medical Group in part. (Doc. 164). The order allowed prison officials to search 22 Plaintiff's boxes for the catheter and packaging at issue in this case. The Court placed several 23 restrictions on the search, including a prohibition against prison officials reading any documents, 24 books, or other information contained within Plaintiff's property. In the instant pleading, 25 Plaintiff has requested that the Court "appoint an impartial person to act as a Special Master to 26 search the boxes of property with the Plaintiff present to observe the search." (Doc. 164 at pg. 27 3). 28 1 ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ROCHESTER MEDICAL ) CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation ) and JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTOR, ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1:07-CV-1318 OWW GSA ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(Document 177)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cf0di0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's request and has determined it is moot. The Court ordered that the Warden respond to the subpoena no later than May 21, 2010. (Doc. 164 at pg. 7, lines 23-25). The Court did not receive Plaintiff's request until May 24, 2010, after the date the search was ordered to take place. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not provide any legal authority in support of his request, nor did Plaintiff indicate how the "impartial person" would be compensated. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

May 28, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2