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

1

Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s response dated February 12, 2007, was filed after the noting

date and will not be considered by the Court. 

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

AND DENYING MOTION TO

EXCEED WRITTEN

INTERROGATORY LIMIT

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Presently

before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to extend the discovery deadline (Dkt. # 88) and to exceed

the written interrogatory limit (Dkt. # 86). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motions and

Defendants’ opposition (Dkt. # 89)1

, the Court finds that the motion to extend the discovery deadline

should be granted and the motion to exceed the written interrogatories limit should be denied.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an extension of ninety-days beyond the present discovery deadline of

February 2, 2007, to amend his complaint, to complete deposition discovery, and to compel

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 93 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 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 ORDER - 2

production of previously requested discovery. (Dkt. # 88). Plaintiff also seeks leave to exceed the

written interrogatory limit. (Dkt. # 86).

Defendants submit that Plaintiff does not need further discovery, does not explain why he

needs further time to complete discovery and that they have cooperated with Plaintiff in his discovery

efforts and will continue to assist in completing any outstanding discovery issues. (Dkt. # 89, Exh.

1). Defendants also point out that Plaintiff has filed numerous discovery requests, including 193

Requests for Admissions directed towards all thirteen Defendants; 24 Requests for Production of all

thirteen Defendants with 516 pages of documents being produced and 25 interrogatories of all

thirteen Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff has also deposed Defendants Rohrer, Jimenez, Mortimeyer,

Shanahan, Dahne and Stroup. In addition, the depositions of Defendants Strong and Scott were

scheduled for the week of February 5, 2007. 

A. Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline

Deposition discovery remains to be completed. Plaintiff was previously granted leave to take the

depositions of all named Defendants in this case. (Dkt. # 84). It appears that at least six of those

depositions are complete and two more are scheduled. The parties have indicated that they will continue

to work together to complete the outstanding deposition discovery. Therefore, the Court finds it

appropriate to grant a sixty day extension of the discovery deadline for the sole purpose of completing

the deposition discovery.

B. Motion to Exceed Written Interrogatory Limit of 25 Interrogatories

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) provides that without leave of court, the number of interrogatories that

any party may serve upon any other party may not exceed “25 in number including all discrete

subparts.” 

Plaintiff does not explain what additional information he seeks from the Defendants which

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 93 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 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 ORDER - 3

would require written interrogatories in excess of those allowed under the Rules. Although leave to

serve additional interrogatories may be granted, Rule 26(b)(2) provides that the “frequency or extent

of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted shall be limited by the court if it determines that

“the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the

information sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has had and will have ample opportunity to obtain the

information sought through the various depositions of the defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline (Dkt. # 88) is GRANTED

for sixty days from the date of this Order and motion to exceed the written interrogatory limit

(Dkt. # 86) is DENIED. An Amended Scheduling Order will issue separately.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 93 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3