Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04443/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04443-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FONDA J. HOUSTON,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-4443 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY INTERROGATORIES

OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This is a disability discrimination case alleging eight causes of action. Defendants are

the Regents of the University of California and Heidi Hoffman. The two defendants each

propounded 25 interrogatories to plaintiff. They now seek leave to propound an additional 10

interrogatories (total), claiming that each of them mistakenly propounded the same 25, rather

than 25 each as is permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. They assert that they

have produced more than 10,000 pages of documents to plaintiff, and that plaintiff has

identified 26 witnesses in her initial disclosures. They contend that they need the additional

interrogatories in order to obtain information to support their motion for summary judgment,

and briefly describe a few of the categories of information that they seek.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. She argues that because her deposition has been taken

twice – once in this case and once in her worker’s compensation case – there is no need for

additional interrogatories. She also claims that the “[t]he set provided . . . in the meet-andconfer process is excessively burdensome and objectionable,” and that the interrogatories

already propounded “cover the case.” She argues in addition that the motion should be

denied because defendants did not attach the proposed additional interrogatories to their

Case 4:04-cv-04443-PJH Document 31 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

1

 Local Rule 33-3 requires that any motion for leave to propound more interrogatories than

permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P.33 “must be accompanied bya memorandum whichsets forth each

proposed additional interrogatory and explains in detail why it is necessary to propound the

additional questions.” Civ. L.R. 33-3. The Declaration of Marcie Isom in support of the

defendants’ motion states that a copy of the proposed second setof interrogatories is attached

as Exh 2 to the declaration. However, Exh. 2 is a copy of defendants’ second request for

production of documents, not interrogatories.

2

motion, in violation of Civil Local Rule 33-3.1 

The court finds that defendants have established good cause for their request. Rule 33

allows each defendant in this case to propound 25 interrogatories to plaintiff, and defendants

have explained that they inadvertently propounded duplicate interrogatories instead of two

different sets of 25. Thus, while it is true that they failed to comply with Local Rule 33-3,

compliance with the rule is not necessary, as defendants are each entitled to 25

interrogatories. The additional 10 interrogatories is reasonable, and the request is

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04443-PJH Document 31 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2