Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DONOHUE v. LAMBERT, 7:13CV00397. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia Number: infdco20160106e36 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER GLEN E. CONRAD , Chief District Judge . In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ADJUDGED AND ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's outstanding objections (ECF Nos. 138, 193, 221, 222, 237, 249, 251, 256, 271, 272, 276, 299, 300, 302, 306, 315, 318, 319, 335, and 352) to the prior orders of this court and the prior orders of the magistrate judge regarding discovery and pretrial matters are hereby OVERRULED, and the other orders of the magistrate judge are
More

ORDER

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED

as follows:

1. Plaintiff's outstanding objections (ECF Nos. 138, 193, 221, 222, 237, 249, 251, 256, 271, 272, 276, 299, 300, 302, 306, 315, 318, 319, 335, and 352) to the prior orders of this court and the prior orders of the magistrate judge regarding discovery and pretrial matters are hereby OVERRULED, and the other orders of the magistrate judge are hereby AFFIRMED; 3. As previously ordered, defendants are DIRECTED to bring to trial for the court's review the prison security policies that plaintiff requested during discovery; and 2. The parties are DIRECTED to come to court on January 4, 2015, prepared to present testimony, evidence, and argument on the issue of spoliation, with regard the failure of the defendants to preserve the rapid eye surveillance video recordings from June 6-7, 2013. The defendants are DIRECTED to make Investigator McQueen or his designee available to testify regarding the maintenance of rapid eye surveillance camera footage at Red Onion—in general, and related to plaintiff's claims, in particular.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer