Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-9/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06554-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SERVE INTERROGATORIES IN EXCESS OF

RULE 33(A) LIMIT

(Doc. 58)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(Doc. 59)

Deadline to Serve Discovery

Responses: April 23, 2007

Motion to Compel Deadline: Thirty days after

service of discovery responses

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deadline for the completion

of all discovery in this action is April 11, 2007. (Docs. 51, 55.) On February 28, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking leave to serve interrogatories in excess of the limit of twenty-five set forth in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). On March 23, 2007, defendants filed a motion seeking an

extension of time to serve responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories, request for admissions, and request

for the production of documents. 

Plaintiff asserts that he needs to propound additional interrogatories in order to obtain

additional facts regarding each defendant’s involvement, and because the complexity of the case has

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 60 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

caused him to need additional interrogatories. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions do not support a

motion for leave to serve interrogatories in excess of twenty-five per defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2); Williams v. County of Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CIV S-03-2518 FCD DAD P, 2007

WL 587237, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007). The court finds that plaintiff has not met his burden

as the moving party and his motion shall be denied.

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time up to and including April 23, 2007, to serve

discovery responses shall be granted. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of service of

defendants’ discovery responses within which to file a motion to compel, if plaintiff deems one

necessary after reviewing the responses.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to serve interrogatories in excess of the limit of

twenty-five set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a), filed February 28,

2007, is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ motion seeking an extension of time to serve responses to plaintiff’s

interrogatories, request for admissions, and request for the production of documents,

filed March 23, 2007, is GRANTED;

3. Defendants shall serve their discovery responses on or before April 23, 2007; and

4. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of service of defendants’ responses

within which to file a motion to compel, if he deems one necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 60 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2