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)
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?