Rodriguez v. Diaz et al

Rodriguez v. Diaz et al

Case Number:	1:2005cv01831
Filed:	February 4, 2005
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Colleen McMahon
Presiding Judge:	Michael H. Dolinger
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 29, 2009	Filing 74 ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITIONS: Judge Dolinger's order is indisputably correct. Plaintiff is incarcerated and the preferred method of taking discovery by an inca rcerated person is written interrogatories. Additionally, neither the court nor the State has any obligation to provide a court reporter for an oral deposition, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has the means to hire a court reporter. There fore, plaintiff shall proceed by written interrogatories if he wishes to address questions to any of the defendants. Plaintiff should write out his questions and send them to defendants' counsel, who will respond to them within 30 days. The dead line for taking discovery in this action is hereby extended to 30 days after plaintiff sends written interrogatories to counsel for defendants, PROVIDED that they be sent out from the facility no later than October 16, 2009. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/28/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)
March 25, 2009	Filing 43 DECISION AND ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS: For the reasons herein, the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 3/24/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 29, 2009

Filing 74 ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITIONS: Judge Dolinger's order is indisputably correct. Plaintiff is incarcerated and the preferred method of taking discovery by an inca rcerated person is written interrogatories. Additionally, neither the court nor the State has any obligation to provide a court reporter for an oral deposition, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has the means to hire a court reporter. There fore, plaintiff shall proceed by written interrogatories if he wishes to address questions to any of the defendants. Plaintiff should write out his questions and send them to defendants' counsel, who will respond to them within 30 days. The dead line for taking discovery in this action is hereby extended to 30 days after plaintiff sends written interrogatories to counsel for defendants, PROVIDED that they be sent out from the facility no later than October 16, 2009. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/28/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)

March 25, 2009

Filing 43 DECISION AND ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE FROM THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS: For the reasons herein, the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 3/24/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(jpo)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rodriguez v. Diaz et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?