Although all federal Defendants have now been dismissed from

1

this action, see Order and Memorandum Granting Federal Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss (District of New Hampshire Document (“D.N.H. Doc.”)

#54) (“Order and Memorandum of 11/15/07”) (dismissing last federal

Defendant), the Court identifies the case as it was originally filed,

see Complaint.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GERARD BOULANGER, :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : NH 06-cv-00308-WES

 : RI MC 07-23 S 

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, :

NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT, et al., : 1

 Defendants. :

ORDER

FOLLOWING JULY 16, 2009,

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

On July 16, 2009, the Court conducted a telephone conference

with Plaintiff and counsel for the remaining Defendants in this

action. The following matters were addressed:

1. The Court advised the parties that the Order Vacating

Stay and Notice of Status Conference dated July 6, 2009 (“Order

of 7/6/09”), contained an error in that it referred to “the cost

of [Plaintiff’s] transportation to Rhode Island,” Order of 7/6/09

at 2, and should have stated “the cost of his transportation to

New Hampshire” as this case will be tried in New Hampshire.

2. In response to the Court’s inquiry, Plaintiff stated

that he does not have the financial ability to pay the cost of

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 79 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 3
2

his transportation to New Hampshire. The Court stated that in

light of this circumstance other means of conducting the trial

would have to be investigated, such as by video or telephone

conference.

3. The parties stated that the case was ready to be

scheduled for trial. Plaintiff indicated that he expected to

call three individuals (two correctional officers and his former

attorney), himself, and the five Defendants as witnesses. 

Counsel for Defendants indicated that he expected to call the

five Defendants and approximately six to seven additional

witnesses. 

4. After receiving the above information, the Court stated

that it would require the parties to file a list of their

witnesses and any exhibits. Accordingly, by August 14, 2009, the

parties shall:

a) file a list of the witnesses they intend to

call at trial. For each witness, the party shall

provide the witness’s full name, address at which s/he

can be contacted, and a summary of the testimony which

the witness is expected to provide;

b) file a list of any exhibits they intend to

introduce at trial. For each exhibit, the party shall

state what the exhibit will show. If the relevance of

such exhibit is not self-explanatory, the party shall

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 79 Filed 07/16/09 Page 2 of 3
3

explain why the exhibit is relevant; and

c) provide an estimate as to how many days will

be required for them to present their case. 

4. In response to an inquiry from counsel for Defendants,

the Court stated that he may file a motion to be excused from

trying this case during specified dates in the fall of 2009. In

the same motion, counsel may also indicate the dates which would

be most convenient for him. However, the Court makes no

commitment that counsel’s request to be excused during certain

dates will be granted.

So ordered.

ENTER:

/s/ David L. Martin 

DAVID L. MARTIN 

United States Magistrate Judge

July 16, 2009

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 79 Filed 07/16/09 Page 3 of 3