PRALL v. BOCCHINI et al

Filing 199

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Pltf's requests for deposition upon written requests ( 174 and 185 ) are hereby DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/2/2013. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TORMU E. PRALL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH L. BOCCHINI, JR.,
et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No.: 10-1228(JBS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of
applications of Plaintiff, Tormu E. Prall, for deposition upon
written questions (Docket entry nos. 174 and 185), and the Court
having considered the papers submitted herein, and for the
reasons expressed herein and for good cause shown, and it
appearing that:
1.

On or about January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a demand

for written deposition questions, pursuant to Rule 31 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the Honorable Freda L.
Wolfson, U.S.D.J., challenging the legal basis for the Opinion
and Order issued by Judge Wolfson in this matter on September 23,
2011.
2.

(Docket entry no. 174).
On or about March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a demand for

written deposition questions, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to the undersigned, also apparently
challenging the decisions rendered by this Court in this matter,

in particular, on December 21, 2012 and December 26, 2012.
(Docket entry no. 185).
3.

The scope of discovery in civil matters is fairly broad,

and parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

However, because the purpose of discovery

is to uncover facts about the claims and defenses set forth in
the pleadings, the boundaries of relevance under Rule 26 depend
on the context of each action.

See Salamone v. Carter’s Retail,

Inc., Civ. No. 09–5856, 2011 WL 1458063, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr.14,
2011)(Brown, C.J.); accord Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501,
507 (1947)(the purpose of discovery is to “clarify the basic
issues between the parties and ... ascertain[ ] the facts, or
information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative
to those issues”).
4.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C), the court must

limit the scope of discovery if the court determines that the
discovery sought is “unreasonable, cumulative or duplicative, or
can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive.
5.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

Here, Plaintiff seeks to depose by written questions the

undersigned and Judge Wolfson regarding legal issues that formed
the basis for judicial decisions rendered on September 23, 2011,
December 21, 2012, and December 26, 2012.

Aside from the obvious

fact that this Court and Judge Wolfson are not parties to this
action or persons in possession of facts pertaining to the claims
2

asserted by Plaintiff in this action, it also is clear that the
proposed written questions by Plaintiff are not designed to
ascertain facts or information as to the existence or whereabouts
of facts relating to Plaintiff’s claims.

Rather, Plaintiff’s

written questions are nothing more than questions concerning
legal arguments he has with regard to the Court’s written
decisions in this matter.

To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees

with the Court’s decisions, the proper mechanism for relief is by
appeal, not by demand for deposition by written questions.
6.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s discovery demands of the Court

itself pertaining to judicial decisions with which Plaintiff
disagrees is unreasonable and vexatious, such that it must be
barred pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
THEREFORE, the Court having considered this matter pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, and for good cause shown,
It is on this

2nd

day of

April

, 2013,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests for deposition upon
written questions (Docket entry nos. 174 and 185), are hereby
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order on the
Plaintiff by regular mail, and on counsel for the remaining
defendants electronically.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3