1Defendant LeDuc says he has now served answers.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Terry T. Thomas

v. Civil No. 04-cv-437-PB

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel discovery and for sanctions. 

Plaintiff served interrogatories on defendant Hillsborough

County Department of Corrections (HCDOC) on August 8, 2005. 

Answers were received on October 4, 2005. By letter of October

11, 2005, plaintiff notified the HCDOC of his views of the

deficiencies in the responses. On October 27, 2005, HCDOC

supplemented its answers. On October 31, 2005, plaintiff

identified those interrogatory answers which he still deemed to

be inadequate. The interrogatories at issue are nos. 1, 2, 4, 6,

8, 9, 11, 13, 19, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 12, 26, 29, 27, 32-37 and

38 (in the order set forth in the letter). 

In addition, in December interrogatories were served on

defendant LeDuc which, as of the date of filing of the motion,

were more than thirty (30) days overdue.1 

Case 1:04-cv-00437-PB Document 31 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Discussion

1. Generalized Objections. 

A substantial part of defendants’ objection consists of

making excuses - (1) ‘we xeroxed and bates stamped discovery but

inadvertently didn’t produce it’; (2) plaintiff has been even

less forthcoming and prompt in providing discovery; and (3)

plaintiff wasn’t clear enough in his discovery negotiations. 

While plaintiff may later come to regret this motion later when

defendants press him for discovery from him, he is entitled to

insist on stricter application of the rules. The excuses don’t

resolve the disputes which are considered below. 

2. LeDuc Answers. 

While compelling answers may be moot it is not clear whether

any objections were included. If so, they were waived after

thirty (30) days and answers are ordered. Pro se litigants are

not entitled to legal fees. 

3. HCDOC Answers. 

a. Interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 19, 24,

25, 34, 35 and 36. 

Plaintiff correctly points out that each of these

interrogatories required the information called for by his

interrogatory definition “Identity”. As to all inmates listed

Case 1:04-cv-00437-PB Document 31 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 4
3

HCDOC is to provide the last known information complying with the

definition. As to all HCDOC personnel it is inappropriate to

provide home telephone numbers and addresses to a prisoner such

as plaintiff. Granted in part, denied in part. 

b. Interrogatories 12, 26, 27 and 29. 

The answer to twelve is sufficient. Answers to 26 and 29

are to be supplemented if the duties varied from the position

description previously supplied but not otherwise. 

c. Interrogatories 32-37. 

For reasons known only to HCDOC the interrogatories were

shuffled, combined or left out in answers. HCDOC is to answer

32-37 under oath precisely as stated in the interrogatories. 

d. Interrogatory 38. 

HCDOC states that it has provided the material requested in

no. 38. If not, it shall do so within ten (10) days. 

The motion (document no. 27) is granted in part, moot in

part and denied in part. No sanctions. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 16, 2006

Case 1:04-cv-00437-PB Document 31 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 4
4

cc: Terry T. Thomas, pro se

 Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq.

 Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

 John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00437-PB Document 31 Filed 03/16/06 Page 4 of 4