Pickering v. Clark et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 49 Motion to propound additional interrogatories signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/25/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WAYNE L. PICKERING,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

Case No. 1:11-cv-00937 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL
INTERROGATORIES
(Document 49)

ENENMOH,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Wayne L. Pickering (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against
Defendant Enenmoh for violation of the Eight Amendment.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on April 21, 2015. The discovery cutoff date is September 21, 2015.
On May 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to propound additional interrogatories.
Defendant did not oppose the motion and it is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
DISCUSSION
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)(A) 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. 26(b)(2)

2

(A). However, “the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery ... if it determines that (i)

3

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other

4

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery

5

has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or

6

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the

7

amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and

8

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).

9

“[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to

10

deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery

11

results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” Dichter–Mad Family

12

Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,

13

751 (9th Cir.2002) (alteration omitted)); accord Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th

14

Cir.1996)). “A plaintiff seeking discovery must allege enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation

15

that discovery will reveal’ the evidence he seeks.” Dichter–Mad Family Partners, LLP, 709 F.3d at

16

751 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929

17

(2007); see also Gager v. United States, 149 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.1998) (“It is well-established that

18

the burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to

19

show that the evidence sought exists.”).

20

Here, Plaintiff requests that he be granted leave to propound an additional fifty

21

interrogatories on Defendant Enenmoh. In support of his request, Plaintiff states that since he will

22

not be able to depose Defendant Enenmoh, twenty-five interrogatories will not be sufficient to

23

develop his case. He also states that he expects Defendant Enenmoh to be evasive and anticipates

24

that he will have to file motions to compel.

25

Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to permit additional interrogatories at this time.

26

He has not explained what discovery he has already served, why any such discovery has been

27

inadequate, or what specific information he seeks with additional interrogatories. Moreover,

28
2

1

anticipation of difficulties with discovery does not permit a party to propound additional

2

interrogatories.

3

Finally, serving additional interrogatories is not a method to “basically depose the Defendant

4

through interrogatories,” nor does it excuse Plaintiff from making the required showing under Rule

5

26. ECF No. 49, at 5.

6

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a deposition by written questions, he is informed that

7

depositions by written questions entail more than mailing questions to the deponents and awaiting

8

their written responses. Rather, an officer must be retained to take responses and prepare the record.

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b). This requires the ability and willingness to pay an officer to take the responses

10

for the record. There is no entitlement to take a deposition and to do so, a party must comply with

11

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff is able and willing to compensate an officer to take

12

responses and prepare the record, he may notify the Court and submit an offer of proof regarding the

13

financial ability to compensate an officer.

14
15

ORDER
Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 25, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3