Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NICK WOODALL v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 1, 2010

NICK WOODALL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE ADDITIONAL TWENTY-FIVE INTERROGATORIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Nick Woodall ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed December 22, 2008, against Defendants T. Gonzalez, T. Lawson, Olive, A. Raygosa, M. Sexton, and Valdez for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request to serve additional interrogatories on Defendants, filed August 31, 2010. (Doc. 49.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, and thus requires an additional twenty-five interrogatories per Defendant. Plaintiff has submitted a motion to compel regarding the first set of interrogatories in this action. (Doc. 34.) On October 22, 2010, the Court adjudicated this motion and granted in Plaintiff's favor. (Doc. 60.)

A party is limited to serving twenty-five interrogatories per party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). This limit may be exceeded pursuant to court order. Id. 26(b)(2)(A). The alleged

evasiveness of Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories is not sufficient cause at this time for the Court to grant Plaintiff leave to serve twenty-five more interrogatories on Defendants. If Plaintiff has a dispute with Defendants' responses to his interrogatories, Plaintiff should file a motion to compel. Plaintiff filed only one motion to compel regarding Defendants' responses to his interrogatories, and moved to compel further response to only one interrogatory for two Defendants. (Mot. Compel, Doc. 34.) The Court does not find that leave should be granted at this time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an additional twenty-five (25) interrogatories is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 3b142a

20101201

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.