Custard v. Allred et al
Filing
268
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 1/19/2016. Denying 210 Motion for Order; Granting in part and denying in part 226 Motion for Sanctions. Denying without prej udice 232 Motion to Compel. Denying without prejudice 236 Motion for Order. Upon receipt of documents from Mr. Custard and Mr. Jafek, the court will rule on 235 Motion for Order. Mr. Jafek shall mail another copy of 257 Motion for Summary Judgment to Mr. Custard to be personally delivered by Mr. Cook. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
Civil Action: 13‐cv‐02296‐REB‐CBS
Date: January 19, 2016
Courtroom Deputy: Amanda Montoya
FTR – Reporter Deck‐Courtroom A402
Parties:
Counsel:
BOB CUSTARD,
Pro se
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID ALLRED, et al.,
Timothy Jafek
Defendant.
COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER
HEARING: MOTION HEARING
Court in session: 02:03 p.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Mr. Custard appears by video conference.
The court will hear argument on remaining pending referred motions with the exception of
pending motions for summary judgment.
In regards to [210] Motion for Order, Mr. Jafek tenders redacted and un‐redacted responsive
documents to the court. The court reviews some of the documents and deems that the
reviewed documents are not relevant to this case. The Bureau of Prisons will allow Mr. Custard
to personally review his medical records between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
ORDERED: [210] Motion for Order is DENIED. The court ORDERS that Mr. Custard have
access to his un‐redacted medical records at a time of his choosing, provided
that time does not conflict with security constraints and is between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. If Mr. Custard’s sleep condition conflicts with his ability
to review the records in their entirety, he shall be given as many opportunities to
review these records until the review is complete. This order shall be
communicated to the Bureau of Prisons.
[226] Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion
is denied to the extent it seek sanctions in regards to the response to
interrogatory #8. The motion is granted in regards to interrogatory #7.
Defendant Fief is ORDERED to provide a supplemental response to interrogatory
#7 as the interrogatory is written.
[232] Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice as it does not comply with
Local Rule 37.1.
[236] Motion for Order is DENIED without prejudice as it does not comply with
Local Rule 37.1.
In regards [235] Motion for Order, Mr. Custard shall prepare and send 10
additional requests for production to the court and defense counsel. Those
requests for production must be legible and may not be duplicative of past
requests. After reviewing the requests, defense counsel shall advise the court of
any objections and if they have anything to produce. After reviewing the
requests and defense counsels’ observations, the court will rule on the motion.
Mr. Custard addresses the court in regards to [257] Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr.
Custard received the motion in the mail and the envelope was marked “to be opened in the
presence of the prisoner”. The envelope was opened by the time it reached Mr. Custard and
the contents appeared to be disorganized.
ORDERED: Mr. Jafek shall mail another copy of [257] Motion for Summary Judgment and all
the attachments to Mr. Custard. The envelope shall be marked “to be opened in
the presence of the prisoner”. Mr. Cook shall personally deliver this un‐opened
envelope to Mr. Custard. Mr. Cook shall be present when Mr. Custard opens the
envelope.
HEARING CONCLUDED.
Court in recess: 03:20 p.m.
Total time in court: 01:27
To order transcripts of hearings please contact Stevens-Koenig Reporting at (303) 988-8470.
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?