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.

 Plaintiff has submitted Plaintiff ’ s Witness List: Articles of 2 [ ]

Evidence (D.N.H. Doc. #80) (“Plaintiff’s Witness List”), while

Defendants have submitted their Witness List (D.N.H. Doc. #83) and

their Exhibit List (D.N.H. Doc. #84).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GERARD BOULANGER, :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : NH 06-cv-00308-WES

 : RI MC 07-23

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, :

NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT, et al., : 1

 Defendants. :

ORDER

 DIRECTING PARTIES

 TO COMPLY FULLY WITH PREVIOUS ORDER

On July 16, 2009, the Court issued an order requiring

Plaintiff and Defendants to: a) file a list of witnesses they

intend to call at trial, b) file a list of exhibits they intend

to introduce at trial, and c) provide an estimate as to how many

days will be required for them to present their case. See Order

Following July 16, 2009, Telephone Conference (D.N.H. Doc. #79)

(“Order of 7/16/09”) at 2-3. Although both parties have

submitted lists of witnesses and exhibits, neither party has 2

provided the required “estimate as to how many days will be

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 85 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 2
 Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court should order that he 3

be produced in New Hampshire for trial and that the cost of such

production be borne by the taxpayers. See Plaintiff’s Witness List at

3. Defendants construe this argument by Plaintiff as a request for

such relief, and they ask that it be denied. See Objection to

Plaintiff’s Request for Relief Contained within Witness List (D.N.H.

Doc. #81).

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to have the Court

order that he be produced in New Hampshire at public expense so that

he may attend the trial in person, such request is denied based on the

caselaw which the Court has previously cited. See Amended Order

Vacating Stay and Notice of Status Conference (D.N.H. Doc. #78) at 2-

3. The Court is aware of its authority to issue a writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum. See Plaintiff’s Witness List at 3 (citing

Spears v. Chandler, 672 F.2d 834, 835 (11 Cir. 1982))(holding that

th

federal district court in Alabama erred in denying motions by Alabama

state prisoner for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to attend

civil trial in Alabama federal court on basis that court was without

authority to grant them). Here Plaintiff is incarcerated in

Pennsylvania, and his production in New Hampshire for trial would

involve significant expense to the taxpayers. Thus, his circumstances

are distinguishable from those of the plaintiff in Spears.

2

required for them to present their case.” Id. at 3. 3

Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit the required

estimate within ten days of the date of this Order.

ENTER:

/s/ David L. Martin 

DAVID L. MARTIN 

United States Magistrate Judge

August 21, 2009

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 85 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 2