Latimore v. Suffolk County House of Correction et al

Filing 329

Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER entered re 328 MOTION for an Extension of Time and Request for a Court Order by Jason K. Latimore. (Thomson, Katherine)

Case 1:14-cv-13378-JGD Document 329 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JASON LATIMORE,
v.

Plaintiff,

KENNETH TROTMAN, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-13378-JGD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
AND REQUEST FOR A COURT ORDER
This matter is before the court on the “Motion for an Extension of Time to File Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 328), by which the
plaintiff, Jason Latimore, requests an additional thirty (30) days to file his opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 313), as well as a court order that he
be provided a flash drive with video files formatted for editing purposes.
With respect to the plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty days to file his opposition
it is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The plaintiff signed and dated this motion on August 2, 2022,
and the court issued an order granting the plaintiff an additional thirty days to file his
opposition on August 1, 2022. (Docket No. 326). Therefore, his opposition is due on August 31,
2022.
In addition, the plaintiff has requested this court issue an order directing the defendants
to provide him with a flash drive containing video files in a specific format for video editing
purposes. That request is DENIED without prejudice. The production of electronic discovery

Case 1:14-cv-13378-JGD Document 329 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 2

has been the subject of prior orders of the court. The plaintiff does not contend that the
factual record that was submitted in connection with the first summary judgment motion is not
sufficient to address the remaining legal issues. Rather the plaintiff is trying to make a
demonstrative video file to supplement his argument. Such a demonstrative video is not
needed by the court at this juncture. In connection with his opposition to the motion for
summary judgment, the plaintiff is free to provide any written description of the contents of
any video file he would make if possible. In the event the case proceeds to trial, the plaintiff’s
request to be able to make a demonstrative video can be renewed, if appropriate.

/ s / Judith Gail Dein
Judith Gail Dein
United States Magistrate Judge

DATED: August 10, 2022

2