Boudreau v. Smith et al
| Jason Boudreau |
| Doug Smith, Luigi Amasino, Stanley Konesky, III, Eula, Kaufman, Carney, James Bentz, David Riccio, Brendan Cullen, Town of Branford and Branford Police Dept |
| 3:2017cv00589 |
| April 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Stefan R. Underhill |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
145
ORDER granting 72 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 110 Motion for Sanctions. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Boudreau. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/31/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing
138
ORDER denying 109 Motion to Compel; denying in substantial part and granting in part 117 Motion to Allow Production of Touhy Requests. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/3/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER denying 79 Motion for Order to serve additional interrogatories; denying without prejudice 80 Motion to Strike; granting 81 Motion for Default Judgment insofar as it is treated as a motion for entries of default; granting 83 Motion to S tay; denying as moot 84 Motion to Strike Kaufman's declaration; denying as moot 85 Motion to Strike Cullen's declaration; denying as moot 86 Motion to Strike Smith's declaration; denying 87 Motion to Strike Riccio's declar ation; granting in part and denying in part as set forth in the ruling 88 Motion for Protective Order; denying without prejudice 89 Motion to Strike the defendants' qualified immunity defense; granting 90 Motion for Default Judgment insofa r as it is treated as a motion for entries of default; denying 92 Motion for Permission to serve excess interrogatories; denying 95 Motion to Compel; denying 97 Motion for Leave to file excess pages; granting 99 Motion to Seal; granting in pa rt and denying in part as set forth in the ruling 100 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 101 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 103 Motion for Clarification; denying 104 Motion to Compel; denying 107 Motion for Extension of Time; granting in part and denying in part as set forth in the ruling 108 Motion to Serve subpoena by alternative service. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/22/2019. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion for Order; denying without prejudice 63 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting nunc pro tunc in part and denying in part 64 Motion for Extension of Time; granting in part, denying in part, an d denying without prejudice in part 66 Motion to Compel; denying 69 Motion for Order; granting in part and denying in part 71 Motion for Order; denying as moot 78 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 8/22/2019. (Kaas, E.)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER granting 54 Motion for Protective Order; granting 56 Motion for Protective Order. Boudreau may resubmit new sets of Requests for Admissions on Cullen and Riccio. The Requests must be concise and seek only factual information limited to the sole remaining excessive force claim in this case. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 5/6/2019. (Kaas, E.)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/17/18. (Kaas, E.)
|
|
Filing
9
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Discovery due by 2/10/2018; Dispositive Motions due by 3/12/2018. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/12/2017. (Landman, M)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
