Samuel et al v. Hartford et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Sanctions. See attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on April 19, 2011. (Keefe, B.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT AUGUSTUS SAMUEL, et al., Plaintiff, v. CASE NO: 3:10cv635(CFD) CITY OF HARTFORD, et al., Defendants. RULING AND ORDER The plaintiff moves for sanctions against the defendants for failure to comply with disclosure pursuant to Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. requests and requirements The defendants object on the ground that Rule 26 does not apply in pro se prisoner cases. Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) provides that cases filed without an attorney by a person in the custody of a state are exempt from the initial disclosure requirements. The plaintiff is not represented and is in the custody of the State of Connecticut. Thus, the Rule 26 initial disclosure requirements do not apply in this case. Plaintiff’s motion [doc. #31] for sanctions for failure to comply with those requirements is DENIED. The Court notes that the extended until May 21, 2011. period for discovery has been The defendants are directed to consider the discovery request attached to the plaintiff’s request for a Rule 26(f) conference, as a request for production of documents served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to respond to the request. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 18th day of April 2011. /s/ Thomas P. Smith Thomas P. Smith United States Magistrate Judge 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?