Owens v. Perez et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying without prejudice 37 plaintiff's motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories. See attached order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/13/2019. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARVIN E. OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
E. PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.

3:17CV657(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion for leave
to serve additional interrogatories.

(Doc. #37.)

The plaintiff

requests permission to serve 19 additional interrogatories.

The

motion is denied without prejudice.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
absent a court order "a party may serve on any other party no more
than 25 written interrogatories." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). "A
court may permit a party to serve additional interrogatories to
the extent such additional discovery is consistent with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1) and (b)(2)."

7 James Wm.

Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 33.30[3][a] (3d ed. 2018).
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense

and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to
relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that the court "must limit" the
frequency or extent of discovery . . . if it determines that:
(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;
(ii) the party seeking discovery had ample opportunity
to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope
permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
In considering a request to serve additional interrogatories, the
court must "balance[e] the benefits of more discovery against the
burden on the responding party."

7 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's

Federal Practice § 33.30[3][b] (3d ed. 2018).

"The propounding

party nears the burden of persuading the court that the additional
interrogatories
case."

are

necessary

under

the

circumstances

of

the

Id.

Here,

the

plaintiff

additional interrogatories.

does

not

explain

why

he

requires

Nor is it clear from his motion as he

did not submit the proposed interrogatories for the court's review.
On the record before the court, the plaintiff has not met his
burden of demonstrating that the additional interrogatories are
necessary.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

2

See Alston v.

Sharpe, No. 3:13CV0001(CSH), 2015 WL 6395937, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct.
22,

2015)(denying

interrogatories

plaintiff's

because

the

request

plaintiff

to

serve

failed

to

additional

identify

any

"specific non-duplicative or noncumulative information he seeks
from any Defendant, and has not attached any proposed additional
interrogatories. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether his
requests fall within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1), or whether the
questions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.");
Charles v. Saundry, No. 3:06CV211(AHN)(HBF), 2007 WL 9706361, at
*2 (D. Conn. Apr. 26, 2007) (denying request without prejudice
where plaintiff did not submit copies of the proposed additional
interrogatories).
For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion (doc. #37) is denied
without prejudice.
SO

ORDERED

this

13th day

of

February

2019

at

Hartford,

Connecticut.
____________/s/_______________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

3