UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 30, 2011
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE INTERROGATORIES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant Benuelos for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment.
Pursuant to the scheduling order issued on April 12, 2011, the deadline for the completion of all discovery is December 12, 2011. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to serve interrogatories in excess of twenty-five, filed on October 4, 2011. Defendant filed an opposition on October 19, 2011.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits interrogatories to twenty-five, including discrete subparts, per party. The Court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2). The limitation is not intended "to prevent needed discovery, but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery device," and "[i]n many cases, it will be appropriate for the court to permit a larger number of interrogatories . . . ." Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. ///
Case 1:09-cv-01868-SKO Document 38 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff seeks leave to serve an additional twenty-five interrogatories on Defendant. However, a copy of neither the previous interrogatories nor the proposed interrogatories was provided. The Court will not grant any party leave to serve interrogatories in excess of twenty-five in the absence of information sufficient to allow the Court to scrutinize the request and ensure it is not excessive. Eichler v. Tilton, No. CIV S-06-2894-JAM-CMK-P, 2010 WL 457334, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) ("Plaintiff is required to make some showing as to the reasons for his request to propound extra interrogatories, so that the court may make a determination as to the necessity therefor.")
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to serve an additional twenty-five interrogatories is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.