Martinez v. Buncich et al

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 31 Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories on the Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 2/2/2016. (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
OSCAR MARTINEZ, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BUNCICH, individually and in his official
capacity as Lake County, Indiana, Sheriff,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-62-JVB-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional
Interrogatories on the Defendants [DE 31], filed by Plaintiff on January 20, 2016. Defendant filed
a response on January 28, 2016, and Plaintiff filed a reply on January 29, 2016.
In the Motion, Plaintiff asks for the Court’s leave to file a second set of interrogatories on
Defendant. The additional interrogatories, if allowed, will cause Plaintiff to exceed the interrogatory
maximum set by the Court in accordance with the parties’ report from their planning meeting held
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Plaintiff as the movant, bears the burden to show the necessity of the additional
interrogatories. See Duncan v. Paragon Publ’g, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 127, 128 (S.D. Ind. 2001). Plaintiff
argues he has met this burden by attaching the proposed interrogatories to his motion. The proposed
interrogatories make no legal argument of necessity. Furthermore, the Court does not know the
content of the previous interrogatories served on Defendant, and consequently, cannot discern
whether these interrogatories are necessary. Plaintiff has not shown, or even asserted, that the
additional interrogatories are necessary. Because Plaintiff has not met his burden, his motion is
denied.
Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective December 1,

2015, and both Rules 26 and 33 have changed. Both of the parties refer to the old standard,
previously found in Rule 26(b)(1), that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial
if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Rule
26(b)(1) no longer includes the “reasonably calculated” language. The new standard is that
“[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendant also quotes the old version of Rule 33(a)(1),
which provided that “(l)eave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent
consistent with Rule 26(b)(2),” whereas the amended rule now requires additional interrogatories
to be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve
Additional Interrogatories on the Defendants [DE 31].
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2016.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2