Underwood v. Knowles et al

Filing 112

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/20/2011 denying as moot 110 Motion and ordering defendant, Northcutt to respond to interrogatories by 10/21/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
VALENTINE UNDERWOOD,

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC

11
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
AS MOOT
(Doc. 110.)

12
v.
13
M. KNOWLES, et al.,

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT NORTHCUTT TO
RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES BY
OCTOBER 21, 2011, AS INSTRUCTED BY
THIS ORDER

14
15

Defendants.
/

16
17

Valentine Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this

19

action on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

20

Judge within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to

21

the undersigned for all further proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. (Doc. 102.)

22

This action is now in the discovery phase. On November 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave

23

to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Northcutt. (Doc. 110.) On September 20, 2011,

24

Defendant Northcutt filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 111.)

25

Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[u]nless otherwise stipulated

26

or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

27

including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent

28

consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Rule 26(b)(2) provides that “[b]y order, the
1

1

court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of . . . interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(b)(2)(A).

3

Plaintiff requests leave to serve twenty-two additional interrogatories on Defendant

4

Northcutt, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2). Plaintiff maintains that he was not aware of Rule 33's limit on

5

interrogatories when he served Defendant Northcutt with a Second Set of Interrogatories (“Second

6

Set”) consisting of twenty-five interrogatories, after having served a First Set of Interrogatories

7

(“First Set”) consisting of twenty-two interrogatories, upon Defendant Northcutt. Defendant

8

Northcutt answered only three of the twenty-five interrogatories from the Second Set, refusing to

9

respond to the remaining twenty-two interrogatories because, together with Plaintiff’s First Set, they

10

exceeded the twenty-five interrogatories allowed by Rule 33. Plaintiff argues that the discovery is

11

necessary to his case.

12

Defendant Northcutt argues that Plaintiff fails to make a particularized showing establishing

13

why he should be allowed to serve additional interrogatories on defendant Northcutt. Nonetheless,

14

Defendant Northcutt indicates that he will respond to Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories by October

15

21, 2011.

16

Because Defendant Northcutt has indicated that he will respond to Plaintiff’s additional

17

interrogatories by October 21, 2011, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

18

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20
21

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Northcutt
is DENIED as moot; and

2.

22

Defendant Northcutt shall respond to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories,
Numbers 4 through 25, on or before October 21, 2011.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 20, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2