Bussiere v. Kokor et al

Filing 36

ORDER Addressing 35 Motion for Clarification and Denying Motion to Compel and/or for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories, without Prejudice to Renewal signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/16/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

DR. W. KOKOR, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01565-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND DENYING
MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR FOR
LEAVE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL
INTERROGATORIES, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL

Defendants.

14

(Doc. 35)
15
_____________________________________/
16
Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17

18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 27, 2013. This action is
19 proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Kokor, Hashemi, and Tiggs
20 Brown for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On October 15,
21 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking clarification regarding Defendants’ response to his second
1
22 set of interrogatories and related relief.

If Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ responses to his interrogatories, he must file a

23

24 motion to compel accompanied by a copy of his interrogatories and Defendants’ responses. The
25 Court cannot adjudicate a discovery dispute in the absence of the relevant discovery requests and
26 responses. If the dispute instead arises from Plaintiff’s attempt to serve more than twenty-five
27
28

1

The Court elects to address Plaintiff’s motion without waiting for Defendants to respond, as there is no prejudice to
Defendants in light of Plaintiff’s failure to meet his burden as the party moving for relief. Local Rule 230(l).

1 interrogatories and Defendants declined to respond voluntarily, as appears to be the situation,
2 Plaintiff is required to seek leave of court to exceed the interrogatory limit. Fed. R. Civ. P.
3 33(a)(1). In doing so, Plaintiff must provide a copy of the interrogatories he already served, a
4 copy of Defendants’ responses, and a written explanation regarding the content of the additional
5 interrogatories he seeks to serve.2 The discovery deadline is not until December 7, 2015, which
6 gives Plaintiff ample time to file the appropriate motion with the Court. If, after Defendants
7 respond to the motion, the Court determines the motion has merit, it will extend the discovery
8 deadline to the limited extent necessary to allow Plaintiff to seek the additional discovery
9 identified in his motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is deemed addressed and resolved. To the

10

11 extent Plaintiff is seeking to compel a response to his interrogatories and/or for leave to serve
12 additional interrogatories, his motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in compliance with
13 the terms of this order.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated:

October 16, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.

2