Lopez v. Schwarzenneger

Filing 157

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/10/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request to exceed the 25-interrogatory limit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) is GRANTED and plaintiff may propound an additional ten interrogatories, for a total of 35 per defendant, by no later than October 25, 2012, after which defendants must serve their responses within thirty days; Any subpart to an interrogatory must be subsumed within or necessarily related to the primary question1; otherwise, the subpart is a discrete and separate interrogatory; With respect to plaintiffs requests for production to which defendants object, the parties are to file a joint statement by no later than October 20, 2012, see L.R. 251(c); The October 15, 2012 discovery deadline is VACATED and a hearing on the discovery dispute is set for October 25, 2012, at 10 a.m., before the undersigned.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANDREW RICK LOPEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. CIV S-09-1760 MCE GGH P

vs.

13

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner represented by counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties sought and stipulated to a telephonic discovery conference before the

18

undersigned on October 5, 2012. Following the conference, the court makes the following

19

ORDERS:

20

1. Plaintiff’s request to exceed the 25-interrogatory limit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)

21

is granted and plaintiff may propound an additional ten interrogatories, for a total of 35 per

22

defendant, by no later than October 25, 2012, after which defendants must serve their responses

23

within thirty days;

24

\\\\\

25

\\\\\

26

\\\\\
1

1

2. Any subpart to an interrogatory “must be subsumed within” or “necessarily

2

related to” the “primary question”1; otherwise, the subpart is a discrete and separate

3

interrogatory;

4
5

3. With respect to plaintiff’s requests for production to which defendants object,
the parties are to file a joint statement by no later than October 20, 2012, see L.R. 251(c);

6

4. The October 15, 2012 discovery deadline is vacated and a hearing on the

7

discovery dispute is set for October 25, 2012, at 10 a.m., before the undersigned.

8

DATED: October 10, 2012

9
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11

GGH:009
lope1760.ord

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 444 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
2