Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00476-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0376 RRB KJM P

vs.

ANTHONY LA MARQUE, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. He

has filed two requests for leave to serve additional interrogatories on two of the defendants. 

Under Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve any

other party with up to twenty-five written interrogatories. If a party desires to serve additional

interrogatories, he must seek leave from the court, which “shall be granted to the extent

consistent with the principles of Rule 26(b)(2).” Id. Subsection (C) of that rule provides that

the court may limit discovery if it determines that the material sought is duplicative, cumulative,

or obtainable from some other source, the party seeking the discovery has not taken advantage of

prior opportunities for discovery, or the burden of compliance outweighs any benefits. A party

seeking to serve interrogatories that exceed the rule’s limit must make a showing of

particularized need. Duncan v. Paragon Publishing, 204 F.R.D. 127, 128 (S.D. Ind. 2001);

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 48 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Archer Daniels Midland Company v. Aon Risk Services, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn.

1999).

A. Defendant Lamarque

Plaintiff seeks leave to pose additional interrogatories because, in essence, he

does not like some of Lamarque’s answers to his initial interrogatories and because some of

Lamarque’s answers to the first set of interrogatories suggest the need for further inquiry. For

example, defendant Lamarque classified defendants McDonald and Burke as library technical

assistants, rather than as librarians, as plaintiff believed. Doc. No. 44 (2/12/08 motion),

Larmarque’s Response to Interrogatories ¶¶ 9, 11. Based on these answers, plaintiff has shown

particularized need to propound his new interrogatories, numbered 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, concerning the

job description and other matters relating to library technical assistants. His dissatisfaction with

defendant Lamarque’s other answers, about the maintenance of the law library, does not

demonstrate a particularized need to make additional inquiries. Usery v.Brandel, 87 F.R.D. 670,

685 (W.D. Mich. 1980).

B. Defendant McDonald

Plaintiff seeks additional information from defendant McDonald because her

responses show that she was a library technical assistant, not a librarian. Doc. No. 43,

McDonald’s Response to Interrogatories, ¶ 3. Plaintiff has thus shown particularized need to

propound additional interrogatories concerning McDonald’s job in the library; of the proposed

interrogatories, numbers 1 through 4 and 6 are appropriate. 

Plaintiff has also proposed a series of interrogatories concerning the supervision

and training of inmate law clerks, stemming from McDonald’s responses on this subject. Id.,

¶¶ 12-13. Based on these answers, plaintiff has made a showing of particularized need for

responses to his proposed interrogatories 8, 9, 11, and 14.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 48 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to propound additional interrogatories to defendant

Lamarque (docket no. 44) is granted as to interrogatories 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12, but denied in all

other respects;

2. Plaintiff’s request to propound additional interrogatories to defendant

McDonald (docket no. 43) is granted as to interrogatories 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 14, but

denied in all other respects;

3. Defendants are given forty-five days from the date of this order in which to

serve the answers to these interrogatories on plaintiff;

4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended until May 15, 2008;

and

5. The dates for filing pretrial statements, pretrial conference and trial are vacated

pending resolution of dispositive motions. 

DATED: February 29, 2008. 

2

hard0476.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00476-JAM -KJM Document 48 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3