Hoffmann v. Jones

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/03/17 GRANTING IN PART 16 Motion for leave to ask additional interrogatories and admissions. Plaintiff may propound an additional five interrogatories to a total of thirty and an unlimited n umber of requests for admission provided those requests are relevant and non-duplicative. Plaintiffs request for an additional thirty interrogatories assuming he is making such a request is denied without prejudice. He may renew this request in c onjunction with specific argument as to why these additional interrogatories are necessary. In light of the foregoing, the deadline for propounding discovery currently September29, 2017 15 at 4 is extended three weeks from the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M) Modified on 10/3/2017 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KASEY F. HOFFMAN,

11

No. 2:15-cv-1526-EFB P

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

KEVIN JONES,

14

ORDER

Defendant.

15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion for leave to ask additional interrogatories and admissions.

18

ECF No. 16. Defendant has filed an opposition. ECF No. 17. For the reasons stated hereafter,

19

plaintiff’s motion is granted in part.

20

I.

Legal Standards

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 limits interrogatories to twenty-five per party,

22

including discrete subparts, but the Court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to an

23

extent consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and (2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

24

This limitation is based on the recognition that, although interrogatories are a valuable discovery

25

tool, “the device can be costly and may be used as a means of harassment . . . .” Advisory

26

Committee Note, 146 F.R.D. 675, 675 (1993). The limitation is designed “not to prevent needed

27

discovery, but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this

28

type of discovery.” Id.
1

1

Rule 26(b)(2) provides that:

2

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or
extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules by local rule if
it determines that:

3
4

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

5
6

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity
to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or

7

(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted
by Rule 26(b)(1).

8
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). “The party requesting additional interrogatories must make a

10

‘particularized showing’ as to why additional discovery is necessary.” Waterbury v. Scribner,

11

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53142, 2008 WL 2018432 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Archer Daniels

12

Midland Co. v. Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999)).

13
14

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not establish a numerical limit on requests for
admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).

15

II.

16

Analysis
Plaintiff’s motion seeks leave of the court to ask defendant thirty interrogatories and an

17

unspecified number of requests for admissions. ECF No. 16 at 1. He argues that this additional

18

discovery is necessary because he is a pro se litigant and is unable to pay for, or conduct a proper

19

deposition. Id. Defendant points out that it is unclear whether plaintiff is seeking a total of thirty

20

interrogatories – five over the Rule 33 limit – or an additional thirty interrogatories, to a total of

21

fifty-five. ECF No. 17 at 5. Defendant does not object to the former, but does object to the latter.

22

He argues that plaintiff has not made a particularized showing for an additional thirty

23

interrogatories because he has not stated which topics require further interrogational

24

development. Id. The argument is well-taken and plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty

25

interrogatories – assuming he is making such a request – is denied without prejudice. If plaintiff

26

believes he needs that many additional interrogatories, he may file a renewed motion which

27

describes, in specific terms, why this level of additional discovery is necessary.

28

/////
2

1

With respect to requests for admission, defendant acknowledges that the Federal Rules of

2

Civil Procedure do not prescribe a numerical limit. Id. at 4. He notes, however, that plaintiff has

3

already served a total of seventy-five requests for admissions. Id. Thus, he requests that the court

4

caution plaintiff that any new requests for admission should not be duplicative of those previously

5

asked and must be relevant as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is so

6

admonished.

7

III.

Conclusion

8

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to ask additional interrogatories and admissions (ECF No.

10
11

16) is GRANTED in part;
2. Plaintiff may propound an additional five interrogatories to a total of thirty and an

12

unlimited number of requests for admission – provided those requests are relevant and non-

13

duplicative;

14

3. Plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty interrogatories – assuming he is making such

15

a request – is denied without prejudice. He may renew this request in conjunction with specific

16

argument as to why these additional interrogatories are necessary; and

17

4. In light of the foregoing, the deadline for propounding discovery – currently September

18

29, 2017 (ECF No. 15 at 4) – is extended three weeks from the date of service of this order.

19

DATED: October 3, 2017.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3