From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marchand v. Simonson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
May 6, 2013
3:11 - CV - 348 (CSH) (D. Conn. May. 6, 2013)

Opinion

3:11 - CV - 348 (CSH)

05-06-2013

GREGG MARCHAND, Plaintiff, v. ERIK SIMONSON, CITY OF WILLIMANTIC and TOWN OF WINDHAM, 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

______________________

Charles S. Haight, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Marchand v. Simonson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
May 6, 2013
3:11 - CV - 348 (CSH) (D. Conn. May. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Marchand v. Simonson

Case Details

Full title:GREGG MARCHAND, Plaintiff, v. ERIK SIMONSON, CITY OF WILLIMANTIC and TOWN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Date published: May 6, 2013

Citations

3:11 - CV - 348 (CSH) (D. Conn. May. 6, 2013)