Marchand v. Simonson et al

Filing 102

RULING (see attached) denying as moot 93 and 94 Plaintiff's Motions for Court Orders, in light of the hearing scheduled for June 25-26, 2013, pursuant to the Court's prior 97 Order; and granting 101 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order for leave to serve subpoena upon the Tazer Corporation. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 6, 2013. (Dorais, L.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT GREGG MARCHAND, Plaintiff, 3:11 - CV - 348 (CSH) v. ERIK SIMONSON, CITY OF WILLIMANTIC and TOWN OF WINDHAM, MAY 6, 2013 Defendants. RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ORDERS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiff Gregg Marchand, appearing pro se, has filed three recent motions: Doc. 93, Doc. 94, and Doc. 101. Each motion relates, in one way or another, to the hearing that will be conducted on June 25, 2013, pursuant to the Court's prior Order [Doc. 97], familiarity with which is assumed. Plaintiff's motions filed as Doc. 93 and Doc. 94 are both DENIED AS MOOT. The relief prayed for in those motions duplicates and is covered by the questions that will be addressed during the June 25 hearing, as set forth in the Order, Doc. 97. Plaintiff's motion filed as Doc. 101 prays for an order granting Plaintiff leave to serve a subpoena upon the Tazer Corporation, a Texas corporation, by certified United States mail. That motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff may proceed accordingly. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: New Haven, Connecticut May 6, 2013 /s/Charles S. Haight, Jr. Charles S. Haight, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

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?