Tuttamore v. Allred et al
Filing
22
MINUTE ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion to immediately conduct/compel a limited discovery in compliance with Rule 26, 33, and 34 Fed. R. Civ. P., by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 07/25/2011.(wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–01522–MSK–KMT
TIMOTHY S. TUTTAMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ALLRED,
A. OSAGIE,
ADX WARDEN DAVIS,
M. SMITH, and
UNKNOWN UTILIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS, all in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion to immediately conduct/compel a limited discovery in compliance with Rule
26, 33, and 34 Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. No. 11, filed July 18, 2011) is DENIED. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), pro se actions brought by individuals in the custody of the United
States, a state, or a state subdivision are a category of proceedings “exempt from initial
disclosure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Additionally, the local rules of this court provide
that a scheduling order and orders for discovery are unnecessary in categories of proceedings
listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2.B.2. This court declines to allow
discovery prior to the entry of a scheduling order or discovery order. A preliminary scheduling
conference will be set after Defendants have answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
Dated: July 25, 2011
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?