Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06282/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06282-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS RAMIREZ, CASE NO. CV-F-99-6282 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION RE INTERROGATORIES

[DOC 90] 

vs.

GEORGE M. GALAZA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave

to file additional interrogatories. Plaintiff represents that he has served a total of 36 interrogatories to

date and defendants have refused to answer the interrogatories beyond number 25. Plaintiff requests an

order requiring defendants to respond to the additional interrogatories served and extending the limit to

100 interrogatories.

Absent a stipulation or court order, a party may serve no more than 25 interrogatories on any

other oparty. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). To obtain an order allowing more than 25 interrogatories, a party must

make a particularized showing why the additional discovery is necessary. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

While he has submitted the interrogatories he has already served which appear to be reasonable, plaintiff

Case 1:99-cv-06282-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 10/07/05 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

has failed to identify what further information he hopes to obtain through additional interrogatories or

why he cannot use other discovery devices to obtain the same information. Moreover, plaintiff is

reminded of the upcoming discovery deadline of November 16, 2005.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an order requiring defendant to respond to the additional

interrogatories already served is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to the additional interrogatories

within 20 days of this Order. However, plaintiff’s request for leave to serve additional interrogatories

beyond what he has already propounded is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06282-OWW -DLB Document 91 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2