Roy v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al
Filing
45
ORDER denying as moot 40 Motion to Preserve Evidence. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(vln)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Steven J. Roy
v.
Civil No. 12-cv-303-JD
William Wrenn, et al.
O R D E R
Steven J. Roy, proceeding pro se, brings a federal claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the defendants retaliated against him
in violation of the First Amendment by initiating a false
disciplinary charge against him and finding him guilty on the
charge without required due process and a state claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Roy filed a motion
asking the court to order the defendants to preserve certain
evidence.
The defendants object to the motion on the grounds
that on May 15, 2013, counsel for the defendants made a request
that the evidence be preserved, which was discussed at the
scheduling conference, and that Roy has not requested discovery
in a proper manner.1
Roy asks the court to order the defendants to preserve
“[v]ideo records from the (three?) cameras from Medium Custody
1
Parts of the defendants’ objection are so poorly written as
to be incomprehensible. See ¶ 1.
South Unit during the times relevant to the 7/3/2012 DR
(essentially from 5/1/2012 to 7/2/2012)” and “[e]-mail records
involving both the plaintiff AND inmate Randy Duquette dating
from 6/13/2008 forward.”
Counsel for the defendants represents
that the evidence Roy wants to have preserved, if it existed on
May 15, 2013, when counsel asked that it be preserved, has been
preserved.
Therefore, to the extent Roy merely asks to have the
evidence preserved, that request appears to be moot.
To the extent Roy is seeking discovery from the defendants,
he must follow the required procedures under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36 and abide by the
limitations imposed by the rules and the scheduling order in this
case.
Interrogatories should be addressed to a specific
defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).
Requests for production of
documents or other things must also be addressed to a specific
defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a).
In their objection, the
defendants refer to the possibility of sending a subpoena to the
New Hampshire Department of Corrections for particular records.
2
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for an
order to preserve evidence (document no. 40) is denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 25, 2013
cc:
Steven J. Roy #68033
Nancy J. Smith, Esquire
3
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?