Underwood v. Knowles et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
M. KNOWLES, et al.,
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT NORTHCUTT TO
RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES BY
OCTOBER 21, 2011, AS INSTRUCTED BY
Valentine Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this
action on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate
Judge within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to
the undersigned for all further proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. (Doc. 102.)
This action is now in the discovery phase. On November 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Northcutt. (Doc. 110.) On September 20, 2011,
Defendant Northcutt filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 111.)
Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[u]nless otherwise stipulated
or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,
including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent
consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Rule 26(b)(2) provides that “[b]y order, the
court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of . . . interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P.
Plaintiff requests leave to serve twenty-two additional interrogatories on Defendant
Northcutt, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2). Plaintiff maintains that he was not aware of Rule 33's limit on
interrogatories when he served Defendant Northcutt with a Second Set of Interrogatories (“Second
Set”) consisting of twenty-five interrogatories, after having served a First Set of Interrogatories
(“First Set”) consisting of twenty-two interrogatories, upon Defendant Northcutt. Defendant
Northcutt answered only three of the twenty-five interrogatories from the Second Set, refusing to
respond to the remaining twenty-two interrogatories because, together with Plaintiff’s First Set, they
exceeded the twenty-five interrogatories allowed by Rule 33. Plaintiff argues that the discovery is
necessary to his case.
Defendant Northcutt argues that Plaintiff fails to make a particularized showing establishing
why he should be allowed to serve additional interrogatories on defendant Northcutt. Nonetheless,
Defendant Northcutt indicates that he will respond to Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories by October
Because Defendant Northcutt has indicated that he will respond to Plaintiff’s additional
interrogatories by October 21, 2011, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Northcutt
is DENIED as moot; and
Defendant Northcutt shall respond to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories,
Numbers 4 through 25, on or before October 21, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 20, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?