Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02411/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02411-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE M., DONALD M., SR, and DONALD

M., JR., by and through his guardian ad litem,

DONALD M., SR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DUNSMUIR JOINT UNION SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-2411 MCE PAN 

ORDER 

—NFN—

Defendants move to compel plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33,

37. As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve this matter, the February 15, 2006, hearing is

vacated and the court issues this order. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(h).

Defendants Paganini and Raine propounded interrogatories upon plaintiffs November

7, 2005; defendants Morris, Schmitt, Pagnani and Raine propounded a separate set of

interrogatories upon plaintiffs December 9, 2005. Plaintiffs’ responses were due, respectively,

on December 7, 2005, and January 8, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 02/17/06 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

2

Despite requests by defense counsel and promises by plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs

have not responded to either set of interrogatories. Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter

to plaintiffs’ counsel on January 13, 2006, but received no response. Defense counsel has filed a

declaration demonstrating plaintiffs’ “total failure to respond,” exempting compliance with the

joint statement requirement. E. D. Cal. L. R. 37-251(e). 

A party served with interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 is obliged to serve answers or

objections and any answers provided must be verified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). These obligations

must be satisfied within 30 days unless that time is modified in writing by the parties. Absent

such an agreement, all objections and claims of privilege are waived when the deadline imposed

by Rule 33 expires. Richmark Corporation v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474

(9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the

time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th

Cir. 1981)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide verified

answers to defendants’ interrogatories, without objection or claim of privilege, within twenty

days from the date of this order. 

DATED: February 17, 2006.

006.duns2411.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2