Miller v. Kastelic et al

Filing 78

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 76 Plaintiff's Second "Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Claim of Custody of Witnesses," by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/14/2013. (mehcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02677-CMA-MEH LARRY C. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN KASTELIC, DANIEL REIMER, and LT. RIDGWELL, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 14, 2013. Plaintiff’s Second “Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Claim of Custody of Witnesses” [filed June 12, 2013; docket #76] is liberally construed by the Court as Plaintiff’s request for direct access (i.e., without the presence of the opposing attorney) to certain unidentified former and current employees of the Corrections Corporation of America for the purpose of obtaining discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth below. The Court instructed Plaintiff in its May 24, 2013 minute order that he must provide the identity of the persons from whom he seeks discovery. (See docket #73.) With the exception of one person, Plaintiff has provided only descriptions of persons he believes have discoverable information. It is not the Court’s responsibility to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s behalf, nor must the Court investigate the identities of individuals or retrieve documents from third parties to facilitate Plaintiff’s prosecution of this action. In fact, such conduct by the Court would violate its duty of neutrality. Moreover, it is unclear from the Motion whether Plaintiff has made any attempt to obtain the discovery he seeks from Defendants through document requests or interrogatories.1 Plaintiff is advised to demonstrate that he has used and exhausted these discovery tools before submitting additional requests for discovery to this Court. However, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to obtain discovery from Investigator Darren Cortese [docket #76 at 3], the Court observes that Mr. Cortese is not a party to this action, and thus, Plaintiff 1 Indeed, Defendants Kastellic and Ridgwell have alleged in a separate filing that they are capable of producing a number of documents Plaintiff seeks but that Plaintiff has not propounded any such discovery requests. (Docket #75, 2.) need not go through opposing counsel in order to contact him. 2

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?