Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02005/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02005-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 25 and 29.

2

 The Court notes that these two interrogatories actually constitute multiple interrogatories

because they each contain subparts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES NARANJO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE SALVATION ARMY,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-2005 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO

PROPOUND THREE ADDITIONAL

INTERROGATORIES

By letter briefs, the parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 The

parties engaged in some discovery in state court prior to removal, and have agreed that they should be

allowed to propound at least 25 more interrogatories after removal. The instant dispute centers on

whether plaintiff should be permitted to propound three interrogatories in addition to the agreed-upon

25 provided for by the Federal Rules. 

The Court concludes that plaintiff has shown good cause to propound Interrogatory Nos. 26 and

27 because virtually identical interrogatories were propounded by plaintiff when the case was being

litigated in state court prior to removal; defendant responded to those interrogatories but, after removal,

refused to engage in the meet and confer process regarding the state court discovery on the ground that

such discovery was completed. Because plaintiff attempted to meet and confer regarding perceived

deficiencies in defendant’s state discovery responses, the Court finds there is good cause to allow

Interrogatory Nos. 26 and 27.2

Case 3:06-cv-02005-SI Document 31 Filed 09/12/06 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

2

However, plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated good cause to propound Interrogatory No.

28. Between the discovery propounded in state and federal court, plaintiff has already had the

opportunity to propound far in excess of the 25 interrogatories normally allowed in federal court.

Plaintiff may obtain the information sought in Interrogatory No. 28 by other means, such as a deposition

of the person most knowledgeable regarding the matters described in the proposed interrogatory.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02005-SI Document 31 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2