Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE UNDERWOOD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

AS MOOT

(Doc. 110.)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT NORTHCUTT TO

RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES BY

OCTOBER 21, 2011, AS INSTRUCTED BY

THIS ORDER 

Valentine Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this

action on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

Judge within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to

the undersigned for all further proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. (Doc. 102.) 

This action is now in the discovery phase. On November 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave

to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant Northcutt. (Doc. 110.) On September 20, 2011,

Defendant Northcutt filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 111.)

Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[u]nless otherwise stipulated

or ordered by the court, a partymay serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories maybe granted to the extent

consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Rule 26(b)(2) provides that “[b]y order, the

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 112 Filed 09/20/11 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

court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of . . . interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(A). 

Plaintiff requests leave to serve twenty-two additional interrogatories on Defendant

Northcutt, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2). Plaintiff maintains that he was not aware of Rule 33's limit on

interrogatories when he served Defendant Northcutt with a Second Set of Interrogatories (“Second

Set”) consisting of twenty-five interrogatories, after having served a First Set of Interrogatories

(“First Set”) consisting of twenty-two interrogatories, upon Defendant Northcutt. Defendant

Northcutt answered only three of the twenty-five interrogatories from the Second Set, refusing to

respond to the remaining twenty-two interrogatories because, together with Plaintiff’s First Set, they

exceeded the twenty-five interrogatories allowed by Rule 33. Plaintiff argues that the discovery is

necessary to his case.

Defendant Northcutt argues that Plaintiff fails to make a particularized showing establishing

why he should be allowed to serve additional interrogatories on defendant Northcutt. Nonetheless,

Defendant Northcutt indicates that he will respond toPlaintiff’s additional interrogatories byOctober

21, 2011.

Because Defendant Northcutt has indicated that he will respond to Plaintiff’s additional

interrogatories by October 21, 2011, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories onDefendant Northcutt

is DENIED as moot; and

2. Defendant Northcutt shall respond to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories,

Numbers 4 through 25, on or before October 21, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 20, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 112 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2