Dittimus v. Bond, et al
Filing
22
MINUTE ORDER denying 20 Motion for Discovery Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rules 26(b)(1) and 34(a)(1)(A) and (B). By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 2/5/2013. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–03010–MSK–KMT
CORRI DITTIMUS a-k-a DERRICK ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MS. BOND, Program Director, Individual and Official Capacities, and
MR. LA LONDE, Case Management Supervisor, Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rules 26(b)(1) and 34(a)(1)(A) and
(B)”1 (Doc. No. 20, filed Feb. 4, 2013) 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.” 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 filed an answer to
Plaintiff’s complaint.
Dated: February 5, 2013
1
The court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion features the wrong caption. Any future motion
featuring the incorrect caption may be stricken. D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1J.
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?