UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Timothy M. O’Mara

v. Civil No. 08-cv-51-SM

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections,

Superintendent, et al.

O R D E R

Defendants move to compel further answers to interrogatories

claiming some answers were inadequate. Plaintiff did not

respond. Each contested interrogatory is considered in turn.

Interrogatory #1. Defendant complains that plaintiff did

not “provide his education, fields of employment, and last

job/employer.” Plaintiff is ordered to supplement to identify:

a. What school he went to in 11th grade;

b. His last job/employer prior to his 2002 disability.

Interrogatory #2. Description of physical altercations and

verbal exchanges. Defendants have failed to show any relevance

or likelihood that the information would lead to admissible

evidence. Denied.

Interrogatory #3. Describe every arrest, crime charge, stop

Case 1:08-cv-00051-SM Document 47 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 4
2

or detention. Denied as overbroad and irrelevant. This is not

the stuff of Rule 609 impeachment and has nothing to do with the

case. It is abusive in the context of a pro se plaintiff. Next

time I see this question it will cost counsel a fine.

Interrogatory #4. Civil claims, including divorce and

administrative proceeding. Irrelevant, overbroad and abusive. 

Denied. 

Interrogatory #6. Denied. Take his deposition.

Interrogatory #7. Denied as his answer clearly incorporates

his medical records, which are in defendant’s custody.

Interrogatory #8. Unless defendants provide him with copies

of his complaint and his motions to amend, they must rely on

them. Denied.

Interrogatory #9. Defendant is ordered to supply copies of

all grievances and requests and seek plaintiff’s confirmation of

them. Otherwise denied.

Interrogatory #11. Employers from seven years back are

irrelevant. Denied.

Interrogatory #12. Provide plaintiff a copy of his inmate

file. Plaintiff is then ordered to answer the question.

Interrogatory #15. Provide him the disciplinary reports. 

Case 1:08-cv-00051-SM Document 47 Filed 06/18/09 Page 2 of 4
3

Plaintiff is then ordered to answer the question.

Interrogatory #16. Plaintiff cannot be compelled to answer

what he doesn’t know. Denied.

Interrogatory #17. Plaintiff states “Mr. O’Mara was 

aware . . ..” Plaintiff is ordered to answer what it was that

Mr. O’Mara should have done. Granted in part, denied in part.

Interrogatory #19. If plaintiff maintained copies of his

correspondence, he is to provide a copy of each one except those

mailed to N.H. Legal Assistance, NH Public Defenders, ACLU or NH

ACLU, which I presume to be privileged. If he kept no copies, he

is ordered to provide his best recollection.

Interrogatory #20. Denied. This is overbroad.

Interrogatory #21. Denied except as to felonies and

misdemeanors involving an element of dishonesty or false

statement, only as to those convictions within the last ten (10)

years. Plaintiff is to provide his best recollection.

Interrogatory #24. Denied as grossly overbroad.

The motion (document no. 43) is granted in part and denied

in part. Counsel would do well to reread N.H. Rules of

Professional Conduct Rule 3.4 and the New Hampshire Bar

Association Litigation Guidelines 7.A or be prepared to write a

Case 1:08-cv-00051-SM Document 47 Filed 06/18/09 Page 3 of 4
4

big check if she serves any more abusive interrogatories.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 18, 2009

cc: Timothy M. O’Mara, pro se

 John A. Curran, Esq.

 Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00051-SM Document 47 Filed 06/18/09 Page 4 of 4