Nguyen v. Bartos, et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/7/2011 ORDERING that dft's 27 motion to compel and for costs is DENIED w/out prejudice; and dft is GRANTED 21 days to serve pltf w/ one set of interrogatories and one set of request for production of documents in accordance w/ this order; pltf to respond w/in 21 days thereafter; dft may file a motion to compel, if appropriate, w/in 21 days thereafter. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TRI D. NGUYEN,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2: 10-cv-1461 WBS KJN P

BARTOS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel filed

18

April 8, 2011. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied. However, defendant is

19

granted an opportunity to serve plaintiff with additional discovery requests in accordance with

20

this order.

21

Defendant has served plaintiff with contention interrogatories and related requests

22

for production of documents. The court has reviewed these requests as well as plaintiff’s

23

responses. Plaintiff’s responses are not adequate.

24

However, “[c]ontention interrogatories, directed to a pro se litigant, are rarely

25

appropriate[.]” Nielsen v. Society of New York Hosp., 1988 WL 100197 at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1988);

26

see also Pobursky v. Madera County, 2009 WL 1582847 at * 2 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“The Court also
1

1

noted, and the long, tortured history of discovery in this action demonstrates, the futility of

2

contention interrogatories, especially in actions involving pro se plaintiffs). In this action, the

3

undersigned finds that contention interrogatories are not appropriate. Defendant would not be

4

prejudiced by requesting the information he seeks from plaintiff in conventional interrogatories

5

and requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (court may limit

6

discovery).

7

Defendant requests an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1137.50 for the

8

costs incurred in bringing ths motion. Because defendant’s motion is denied, the request for

9

costs is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Defendant’s April 8, 2011 motion to compel and for costs (Dkt. No. 27) is

12

denied without prejudice; and

13

2. Defendant is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order to serve

14

plaintiff with one set of interrogatories and one set of request for production of documents in

15

accordance with this order; plaintiff shall respond to this request within twenty-one days

16

thereafter; defendant may file a motion to compel, if appropriate, within twenty-one days

17

thereafter.

18

DATED: June 7, 2011

19
20

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

nguy1461.com(2)

23
24
25
26
2