Eads v. United States of America ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christopher Justin Eads, No. CV-20-00019-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States of America, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are multiple motions, including Defendants’ Motion for 16 Protective Order and Stay of Discovery (Doc. 198); Defendants’ Motion to Modify 17 Scheduling Order (Doc. 203); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Overruling Objections to 18 Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission, and Compelling 19 Answer. (Doc. 222.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ 20 Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discovery and deny the remaining two motions. 21 I. Background 22 On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff mailed his discovery requests to Defendants United 23 States, Manwaring, and Ulbricht. (Docs. 198-1, 198-2, 198-3.) Plaintiff propounded on 24 each defendant 234 requests for admission, a request for supporting documents for the 234 25 requests for admission, 32 separate requests for production, and 21 interrogatories with 26 over 10 cumulative discrete subparts. (Id.) Two weeks later, Defendants filed a Motion for 27 Protective Order and Stay of Discovery, requesting a protective order limiting Plaintiff to 28 10 requests for admission, 15 requests for production, and 25 interrogatories to each 1 Defendant. (Doc. 198 at 3.) Defendants also request a stay of discovery until the Court 2 rules on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Compel Preliminary 3 Expert Affidavit. (Id.) Finally, in a separate motion, Defendants request the Court modify 4 its scheduling order should it decline to stay discovery. (Doc. 203 at 1.) 5 Plaintiff responded, contending that his good-faith discovery requests were not 6 unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportional to the needs of the case. (Doc. 212 at 5.) 7 Rather, Plaintiff argues, his discovery requests comply with the applicable Federal Rules 8 of Civil Procedure and reflect the needs of his complex case, which warrants extraordinary 9 relief. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Order Overruling Defendants’ Objections, 10 reiterating Plaintiff’s position on these discovery issues and requesting the Court compel 11 Defendants to answer. (Doc. 222) As for Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery, 12 Plaintiff agrees. (Doc. 212 at 3.) Plaintiff takes no position as to Defendants’ request to 13 modify the current scheduling order. (Doc. 229 at 2.) 14 II. Discussion 15 The Court will grant Defendants’ request for a protective order. “Parties may obtain 16 discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 17 defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s 234 18 requests for admission are neither proportional to the needs of the case nor a proper use of 19 Rule 36.1 This case centers on a single incident that occurred on or about June 12, 2018, 20 and related allegations of mistreatment before and after the incident. (Doc. 23.) A limit of 21 25 interrogatories including discrete subparts,2 15 requests for production, and 10 requests 22 1 The 1970 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 36 states: “The very purpose of the request 23 is to ascertain whether the answering party is prepared to admit or regards the matter as presenting a genuine issue for trial.” The Court seriously doubts each of the 234 requests 24 address a genuine issue for trial. Moreover, the Advisory Committee Note warns against excessive requests for admission: “[R]equests to admit may be so voluminous and so 25 framed that the answering party finds the task of identifying what is in dispute and what is 26 not unduly burdensome. If so, the responding party may obtain a protective order under Rule 26(c).” 27 2 “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other 28 party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The Advisory Committee Notes add that “Parties cannot evade this 1 for admission are sufficient for a case of this complexity. See Gutierrez-Valencia v. Ryan, 2 No. CV-2000-376-PHX-JAT-DMF, 2021 WL 527377, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2021) 3 (limiting pro se prisoner plaintiff to 25 interrogatories, 15 requests for production, and 10 4 requests for admission). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the needs of this case justify 5 hundreds of requests for admission and effectively hundreds of requests for production— 6 an extreme departure from the discovery limitations of similar prisoner civil-rights cases. 7 The Court will limit therefore Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (the 8 court may enter protective orders to limit discovery). 9 The Court will also grant the stay of discovery. A court may, for good cause, issue 10 an order staying discovery to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, 11 or undue burden or expense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The decision to stay discovery 12 pending the resolution of a potentially dispositive motion is within the court’s discretion. 13 See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1981). In light of the parties’ agreement 14 that a stay is appropriate, the Court will grant the stay to prevent the undue burden of 15 conducting discovery on issues that may be resolved by the pending motions. 16 The Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and 17 Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Overruling Objections to Interrogatories, Requests for 18 Production, and Requests for Admission; and Compelling Answer. As Defendants state in 19 their Motion, the issue of modifying the scheduling order is moot given the stay of 20 discovery. (Doc. 203 at 1.) The Court will set new deadlines upon the resolution of 21 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Compel Preliminary 22 Expert Affidavit. For the reasons stated above, including that Plaintiff’s discovery requests 23 are disproportionate to the needs of this case, the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request 24 that the Court overrule Defendants’ objections and compel Defendants to answer. 25 // 26 presumptive limitation through the device of joining as ‘subparts’ questions that seek 27 information about discrete separate subjects.” Interrogatory subparts will only be counted as one interrogatory if they are factually or logically subsumed within and necessarily 28 related to the primary question. See Ginn v. Gemini, Inc., 137 F.R.D. 320, 322 (D. Nev. 1991). TI. Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, 3 IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discovery (Doc. 198) || is granted. The Court will resume discovery and set new discovery deadlines upon the 6|| resolution of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Compel Preliminary Expert Affidavit. At that time, Plaintiff may propound on each defendant no 8 || more than 25 interrogatories, 15 requests for production, and 10 requests for admission. 9 2. Defendants’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 203) is denied as 10 || moot. 11 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Order Overruling Objections to Interrogatories, 12 || Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission, and Compelling Answer (Doc. 222) || is denied. 14 Dated this 9th day of December, 2022. 15 16 □ 17 fot Sopp 18 ; Honorable Jennife □□□□□ United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-