Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 RegisterActionDate "2017-12-15" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff files 34 , a motion to waive the e-filing requirement as he was housed at Dixon Correctional which did not participate in the program. Plaintiff, however, has filed a subsequent change of address in a later filed Motion for Subpoenas 35 which renders 34 MOOT. The Clerk is DIRECTED to add the new address to the docket. Plaintiff's 35 , requests that subpoenas issue to 5 IDOC employees so they might provide information as to his conditions of confinement claim. It is unclear whether Plaintiff requests their trial or deposition testimony or that they produce records. 35 is too vague for the Court to determine the relevance and is DENIED. See Jackson v. Brinker, 1992 WL 404537, at *7 (S.D.Ind. Dec. 21, 1992). Plaintiff is advised that he may be able to receive this information through normal discovery channels. In addition, if the matter proceeds to trial he may request that these individuals be called as witnesses subject to Defendant's objection as to relevance or the cumulative nature of the testimony. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/15/2017. (GL, ilcd) (Entered: 12/15/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 hasJudgeReference SJ001511 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de42 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de44 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01110_de43 @default.