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.)

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