Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00353/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00353-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

KAM WONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00353-JST (RMI)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 68, 80

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions, (dkts. 68 & 80), were referred 

to the undersigned for disposition. See Order (dkt. 83). Both motions are now fully briefed1and 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds that the motions are due to be determined 

without oral argument.

A. Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories (dkt. 68)

In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks permission to “propound [four] additional follow up 

interrogatories upon Defendant McBride.” Mot. (dkt. 68) at 2. As the basis for this request, 

Plaintiff points the court to McBride’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, wherein, 

McBride denied that he violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 5.

McBride objects to the Motion on several grounds. First, McBride asserts that Plaintiff has 

violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) by failing to obtain leave prior to serving these 

additional interrogatories. Defs.’ Resp. (dkt. 73) at 2. Rule 33 allows for up to twenty-five (25) 

interrogatories to be served on any one party and requires leave of court prior to the service of 

 

1

See (dkts. 68, 73, 77, 80, 81, & 86).

Case 3:18-cv-00353-JST Document 93 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

additional interrogatories. Second, McBride states that Plaintiff’s Motion is disingenuous in that it 

fails to disclose that Plaintiff has already submitted a second set of interrogatories and that this 

request would amount to a third set. Id. Third, McBride argues that the requested additional 

interrogatories “seek to ask Deputy McBride to prove a negative,” and that Plaintiff has neglected 

“to mention the plethora of discovery responses that have been provided by Deputy McBride (and 

the other defendants) to date.” Id. at 3. McBride then provides examples of several previous 

responses to interrogatories. Id. at 3-4.

The requested additional interrogatories are as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1: Pertaining to your response to “No. 29” 

of request for admissions. You deny, that you subjected Plaintiff to 

cruel and unusual punishments. In other words, you are admitting it 

is okay for you to deliberately house Plaintiff in a pod with mentally 

ill inmates and the inhumane conditions of confinement than?

 

Interrogatory No. 2: Pertaining to your response to “No. 30” 

of request for admissions. You deny, that you deprived Plaintiff his 

due process. Can you please state all process you have provided and 

or afforded to Plaintiff that were due?

Interrogatory No. 3: Pertaining to your response to “No. 17” 

of request for admissions. You responded “that it was not his decision 

to make.” Please state did you ever made recommendations after 

October 6, 2017 to have Plaintiff removed and or released from AdSeg confinement?

Interrogatory No. 4: Pertaining to your response to “No. 32” 

of request for admissions. You deny, that you violated Plaintiffs’ U.S. 

Constitutional rights. In other words, you are admitting that it is okay 

for you to deliberately house Plaintiff with mentally ill inmates, 

inhumane conditions of confinement and deprives Plaintiff 

procedural due process to challenge the Ad-Seg confinement?

Mot. (dkt. 68) at 3-5. On review of the proposed third set of interrogatories, the court finds no 

basis to allow these to be served. Disagreement with previous responses to interrogatories, or 

requests for admissions, is not a basis for propounding additional interrogatories. McBride has 

already denied that he was aware of the poor conditions in which Plaintiff described his cell, and 

McBride has stated that Plaintiff’s classification status and release was not his decision to make.

2

//

 

2 See the previous responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions provided in Defs.’ 

Resp. (dkt. 73) at 3-4.

Case 3:18-cv-00353-JST Document 93 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In order to respond to Plaintiff’s proposed additional interrogatories, McBride would need to: 

admit to placing Plaintiff in a pod with mentally ill inmates and inhumane conditions of 

confinement; admit that it was his responsibility to provide Plaintiff with due process; admit that it 

was within his scope of duties to provide recommendations that Plaintiff be removed or released 

from Ad-Seg confinement; and, admit that it was okay for Plaintiff to be housed with mentally ill 

inmates, in inhumane conditions of confinement, and to be deprived of due process. These 

admissions and responses would run contrary to McBride’s previous statements. The proposed 

interrogatories are argumentative, repetitive, and improper. Again, simply because Plaintiff is 

unhappy with McBride’s responses, or Plaintiff has thought of other ways to ask the same or 

similar questions, does not mean that he can propound additional interrogatories. Otherwise, the 

interrogatory process would be endless. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories (dkt. 68) is 

DENIED.

B. Motion for Leave to File Motion to Propound Additional Interrogatories (dkt. 80)

Plaintiff requests leave to file a motion to serve additional interrogatories on Defendants 

Almeria, Griffitts, Hattaway, & McBride. Pl.’s Mot. (dkt. 80). Defendants object to the motion on 

the basis that Plaintiff has failed to meet-and-confer prior to the filing of the Motion. See Defs.’ 

Resp. (dkt. 81). In his Reply, Plaintiff argues that because the Motion seeks leave to file a motion 

and not a discovery “dispute,” no meet-and-confer was required. See Pl.’s Reply (dkt. 86).

Regardless of whether Plaintiff was obligated to meet-and-confer prior to the filing of the 

instant Motion, the court will require it now. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Motion to Propound Additional Interrogatories (dkt. 80) is DENIED. The parties are ordered to 

meet-and-confer in a good faith attempt to reach a resolution of the matter. The parties should 

keep in mind the principles of the ruling above in relation to the interrogatory procedure. Plaintiff 

may refile the motion if the parties are unable to reach a joint resolution. Further, Plaintiff is 

instructed to attempt to meet-and-confer with Defendants before filing any future motions that 

have any relation to a discovery matter. 

Case 3:18-cv-00353-JST Document 93 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2019

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00353-JST Document 93 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 4