Hoeck v. Miklich et al

Filing 69

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/1/14. Request for Court Order [#60] and Request for Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum [#67] are DENIED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00206-PAB-KLM
DAVID B. HOECK,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARRYL PROFFIT,
MARY TOOMEY,
LINDA WORTHEN,
SCOTT LANCASTER,
TOM JORDAN,
VALERIE CRAIG,
KEN TOPLISS,
J. STRICKLETT, and
MARY ANN ALDRICH,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Court Order [#60] and on
Plaintiff’s Request for Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum [#67]. Defendants filed a
Response [#62] to Plaintiff’s Request for Court Order, and Plaintiff filed a Reply [#63]. In
the Request for Court Order [#60], Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to perfect a
document he drafted that he states is for “disclosures.” Plaintiff describes the 114-page
document as follows:
The Plaintiff has written a book entitled God’s Truth Revealed, Doctrines and
Beliefs of the New [Testament] Church, which specifically sets forth the
doctrines and beliefs of the Biblical Christian faith through topical Bible
studies. While the Church of God and Biblical Christians have existed for
thousands of years there has not been assemble[d] such a book of reference
for each of the specific faith practices and doctrines. . . . Since the Court and
Defendants have repeatedly stated that the Plaintiff has failed to be
sufficiently specific, he has put together the book of doctrines and beliefs of
the Biblical Christian Church of God, which fully elaborates each of the faith
-1-

practices. While the Church of God does have various books, tracts, and
literature which expounds some of our faith practices, there is only the Holy
Bible left, which the Court and Defendants have repeatedly stated was not
specific enough.
Reply [#63] at 1.
In short, Plaintiff states that, with the help of a fellow inmate, he drafted the document but
was required to print it out by the legal library staff with errors and omissions. The
document was then purged from the computer system. He asks the Court to direct
Defendants and the law library staff “to permit Plaintiff to perfect his document for
disclosures. Also, that they resurrect the document from the recycling bin of the law library
computer, or that they allow ample time to redo the complete 114 page document before
being submitted as part of disclosures.” Request for Court Order [#60] at 1. Defendants
respond that the document cannot be for disclosures in this lawsuit because Plaintiff is
exempt from disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Response [#62] at 2-3. Defendants
further state that “Plaintiff’s creation of this non-legal document was made well in advance
of Defendants serving him with any requests for discovery, and therefore, could not have
been created in response to Defendants’ requests for production. Further, the 145-page
document of religious sermons is likely unresponsive to any discovery requests
propounded by Defendants.” Id. at 3.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request for Court Order [#60] is DENIED. To
the extent that Plaintiff intends to submit this document in response to Defendants’
discovery requests, he may handwrite any corrections on the document before submitting
it to Defendants. If Plaintiff intends to submit this document to Defendants in response to
any specific written discovery request(s), Plaintiff shall do so no later than December 22,
2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum
[#67] is DENIED. Unlike the Request for Court Order [#60], the Request for Service of
Subpoena Duces Tecum was signed by Plaintiff ten days after the discovery deadline
lapsed. See [#53]. Plaintiff’s request is therefore untimely as discovery closed in this
matter on October 31, 2014.
Dated: December 2, 2014

-2-