Bryant v. Romero et al

Filing 65

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Additional Interrogatories On Defendant Waddle (ECF No. 57 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/9/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02074 DAD DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL
INTERROGATORIES ON DEFENDANT
WADDLE

14
[ECF No. 57]
15
R. ROMERO, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012. On
November 1, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an
amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 2, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff named as Defendants: Correctional Lieutenant
Constance Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos. On March 25, 2015, Defendants
Castellanos and Waddle filed an answer.

25
26
27

On November 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to serve additional
interrogatories on Defendant Waddle. Defendant did not file an opposition.
///

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DISCUSSION
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits interrogatories to twenty-five per
party, including discrete subparts. The Court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to
the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2). The limitation is not intended “to prevent needed discovery,
but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery
device,” and “[i]n many cases, it will be appropriate for the court to permit a larger number of
interrogatories....” Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments of Fed.R.Civ.P. 33.
The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, Hunt v. County of Orange,
672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir.2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635
(9th Cir.2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002), and Plaintiff is entitled to some
leniency given that he is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff states his first set of interrogatories on
Defendant Waddle were comprised of fourteen separately enumerated interrogatories. Plaintiff now
seeks to propound an additional three interrogatories with subparts. Plaintiff's desire in this case to
ask a minimal number of additional, relatively straightforward questions cannot be described
accurately as harassing and/or unduly burdensome, particularly given that a number of the questions
are unlikely to do more than draw an objection.
Therefore, Defendant Waddle shall serve her responses to the additional interrogatories
within thirty days.

19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve interrogatories in excess of twenty-five, filed on
November 19, 2015, is GRANTED; and
2. Defendant Waddle shall serve responses to Plaintiff's additional interrogatories within
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 9, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3