Guion v. Spurlock et al

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER denying as premature 34 Motion of Power to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum § 13-90.5-112, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/28/2014.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00391-MEH
CURTIS GUION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPURLOCK, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
GILBERT, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
CUTCHER, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities,
GROOMS, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
Z. MAHER, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
CASADY, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
WHITE, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
TRUJILLO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
BARBERO, Captain, in his official and individual capacities,
TRAVIS TRANI, Warden, in his official and individual capacities,
BROWN, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
P. ARCHULETA, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
MONTOYA, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
MORRIS, in his official and individual capacities,
BENSKO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
D. RAYMOND, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities,
S. FOSTER, Associate Warden, in his official and individual capacities,
SOLANO, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
J.R. ADAMS, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
BUTERO, Sergeant, in his official and individual capacities, and
MAHONEY, Correctional Officer, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 28, 2014.
The Plaintiff’s Motion of Power to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum § 13-90.5-112 [filed
July 25, 2014; docket #34] is denied as premature. There are several Defendants who have not yet
appeared in this case and the Scheduling Conference is not set until September 8, 2014. See docket
#27. Accordingly, once the Defendants appear in the case, the Plaintiff may seek the discovery he
lists in his motion directly from the parties in accordance with the federal rules of civil procedure.
If any party refuses to respond to or produce Plaintiff’s requested discovery, he may then seek relief

from the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.