Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-10/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

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO SERVE INTERROGATORIES IN EXCESS

OF TWENTY-FIVE

(Doc. 59)

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE MOTION

(Doc. 60)

Response Deadline for Raman and Soto: 07/01/2013

Response Deadline for Byers: 30 days

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, Byers, Doe, and

Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims. 

On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to serve interrogatories in excess

of twenty-five on Defendants. Defendant Byers filed an opposition on May 16, 2013, and 1,2

Defendants Raman and Soto filed an opposition on May 20, 2013. Plaintiff filed a reply on May 30,

2013. 

At this juncture, only Defendants Raman, Soto, and Byers have made an appearance in the action. The

1

United States Marshal is still attempting to locate and serve Defendants Hayes and Rotman, and Plaintiff will need to

identify Defendant Doe through discovery.

A duplicative motion was received and filed on April 30, 2013, and it will be stricken from the record.

2

1

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 67 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 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

II. Discussion

As an initial matter, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to respond to the interrogatories

he served. Pursuant to the scheduling order, responding parties have forty-five days to respond. If

Plaintiff served interrogatories on March 20, 2013, as he states, Defendants’ responses were to be

served on or before May 9, 2013, and any request for relief regarding that issue was filed

prematurely.

3

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits interrogatories to twenty-five per

party, including discrete subparts. The Court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to

the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2). The limitation is not intended “to prevent needed

discovery, but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this

discoverydevice,” and “[i]n many cases, it will be appropriate for the court to permit a larger number

of interrogatories. . . .” Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery, Hunt v. County of Orange,

672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635

(9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002), and while Defendants Byers,

Raman, and Soto’s opposition to additional interrogatories is noted, Plaintiff is entitled to some

leniency given that he is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one, are comprised of

thirty separately enumerated interrogatories, although some have subparts. A number of them will

likely net Plaintiff no information, but the Court does not find them to be unduly burdensome,

harassing, or otherwise inappropriate. Detailed, time consuming, contentious discovery issues are

par for the course in many civil actions. Plaintiff’s desire in this case to ask a minimal number of

additional, relatively straightforward questions cannot be described accurately as harassing and/or

unduly burdensome, particularly given that a number of the questions were or are unlikely to do

more than draw an objection. 

On May 15, 2013, Defendants Raman and Soto filed a motion seeking an extension of time up to and

3

including July 1, 2013, within which to serve their responses. (Doc. 61.) In that motion, they state that the discovery

requests were served on March 31, 2013. Defendant Byers stated in his opposition that his responses were due on or

before May 22, 2013. (Doc. 63, Byers Dec., ¶3.) The Court notes only that when Plaintiff filed his motion on April

25, 2013, Defendants’ discovery responses were not overdue.

2

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 67 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 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

Therefore, Defendants Raman and Soto have until July 1, 2013, to serve their responses to

set one in full, in accordance with the order granting them an extension of time. With no evidence

to the contrary, the Court assumes Defendant Byers has served his responses, and he shall serve his

supplemental responses to set one within thirty days.

However, the Court will not grant Plaintiff leave to serve fifteen additional, to-be determined

interrogatories. In order to ensure that the interrogatories are not excessive or abusive, the Court

must have before it the proposed interrogatories to review and here it does not. Eichler v. Tilton, No.

CIV S-06-2894-JAM-CMK-P, 2010WL457334, at *1 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (“Plaintiff is required

to make some showing as to the reasons for his request to propound extra interrogatories, so that the

court maymake a determination as to the necessity therefor.”) Therefore, Plaintiff’s blanket request

to serve fifteen additional interrogatories is denied, without prejudice. The Court notes that it was

incumbent upon Plaintiff to use wisely the limited number of interrogatories to which he is entitled

under the rules. Utilizing initial interrogatories to seek irrelevant and/or tangential information and

then moving for additional interrogatories to seek information which could have and should have

been sought initially is not viewed with favor.

III. Order

For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve interrogatories in excess of twenty-five, filed on

April 25, 2013, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 

2. Defendants Raman and Soto shall serve responses, in full, to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories, set one, on or before July 1, 2013; 

3. Defendant Byers shall serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set

one, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

///

///

///

///

///

3

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 67 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 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

4. Plaintiff’s duplicative motion for leave to serve interrogatories in excess of twentyfive, filed on April 30, 2013, is STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 67 Filed 06/04/13 Page 4 of 4