Gonzalez v. Department (Bureau) of Real Estate et al

Filing 141

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/27/2019; As an initial matter, the court notes that e-mails to the courtroom deputy clerk are not an appropriate mechanism to bring discovery issues to the court's attention. Discovery-rela ted filings and motions shall be filed on the public docket with the Clerk of Court. Future informal letters and filings via e-mail will be disregarded. With respect to the interrogatories, plaintiff is limited to propounding a total of 25 interrog atories on defendants collectively, and defendants collectively are limited to propounding a total of 25 interrogatories on plaintiff, absent a formal application to the court and showing of need for additional interrogatories. All parties are cautioned that sanctions will be imposed on any party who abuses the discovery process. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL GONZALEZ,

No. 2:15-cv-2448-TLN-KJN PS

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

ORDER
v.
KYLE THOMAS JONES, et al.
Defendants.

17
18

The court is in receipt of correspondence by plaintiff informally submitted to the court via

19

e-mail, attaching another e-mail from defendants’ counsel to plaintiff. The correspondence

20

reveals some apparent confusion regarding the court’s order at the March 25, 2019 informal

21

telephonic discovery conference concerning the number of interrogatories permitted.

22

As an initial matter, the court notes that e-mails to the undersigned’s courtroom deputy

23

clerk are not an appropriate mechanism to bring discovery issues to the court’s attention. With

24

the exception of an e-mail to the courtroom deputy clerk to schedule an informal telephonic

25

discovery conference according to the procedure outlined in the undersigned’s scheduling order,

26

discovery-related filings and motions shall be filed on the public docket with the Clerk of Court.

27

Future informal letters and filings via e-mail will be disregarded.

28

With respect to the interrogatories, even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 may
1

1

in appropriate cases permit each party to propound 25 interrogatories on each opposing party, the

2

court has made a proportionality determination that such an excessive number of interrogatories is

3

not warranted by the needs of this case, and will amount to an undue burden and waste of

4

resources. Therefore, plaintiff is limited to propounding a total of 25 interrogatories on

5

defendants collectively, and defendants collectively are limited to propounding a total of 25

6

interrogatories on plaintiff, absent a formal application to the court and showing of need for

7

additional interrogatories.

8
9
10
11

Finally, all parties are cautioned that sanctions will be imposed on any party who abuses
the discovery process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2019

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2