Firth v. Shoemaker et al

Filing 107

MINUTE ORDER granting in part with respect to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 8 as set forth in Minute Order and denying in all other respects 102 Plaintiff's Follow Up MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatories by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/30/2010.(wjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. SCOTT FIRTH, Plaintiff, v. JONI SHOEMAKER, PEGGY HEIL, JOE STOMMEL, BURL McCULLAR, SAMUEL DUNLAP, CHRISTINE TYLER, DWIGHT MARTINEZ, PAT MOSHURE, JACULYN MAUS, LENNY WOODSON, and TINA VALDEZ, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Follow Up Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatories (Docket No. 102) is granted in part with respect to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 8 as set forth below and is denied in all other respects. Defendants shall respond to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 8 as set forth below on or before December 15, 2010. Request for Production No. 1: Defendants need not produce the plaintiff's entire CODC inmate file because the plaintiff's request is overly broad. Request for Production No. 4 - Defendants need not respond because plaintiff's request is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Request for Production Nos. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 19 - Defendants need not respond because the requests seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 09-cv-00224-MSK-MJW 2 Request for Production No. 5 - Defendants shall supplement their response with documents for the appropriate time period. Request for Production No. 6 - Defendants have adequately responded and need not respond further. Request for Production No. 8 - Defendants shall respond to this request. Request for Production Nos. 12 and 13 - Defendants need not respond because the requests seek information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, these requests are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Request for Production No. 15 - Defendants need not respond because the request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Request for Production No. 18 - Defendants have responded that the documents provided are the only copies which could be located. Defendants need not respond further. Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 17 Defendant has adequately answered and need not respond further. Interrogatory No. 12 - Defendant need not respond. This interrogatory is vague and seems to call for a legal conclusion. Date: November 30, 2010

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?