(PC) Stephenson v. Clendenin ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM STEPHENSON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01521-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL 14 STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., DISCOVERY, GRANTING HIS SECOND MOTION TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL 15 Defendants. INTERROGATORIES, AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY 16 THE SCHEDULING ORDER 17 ECF Nos. 27, 29, & 34 18 19 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed three motions; two seeking to propound additional 20 interrogatories and one seeking to modify the scheduling order. Defendants have filed 21 oppositions to plaintiff’s motions for additional interrogatories. Because I find that plaintiff has 22 not adequately supported his first request for additional interrogatories, I will deny that motion. I 23 will, however, grant his second motion for additional interrogatories and grant in part his motion 24 to modify the scheduling order. 25 Motions to Propound Additional Interrogatories 26 Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, “[u]nless otherwise 27 stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any party no more than 25 written 28 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be 1 granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). 2 Typically, a party requesting additional interrogatories must make a “particularized 3 showing” as to why additional discovery is necessary. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk 4 Services, Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 33(a), once the 5 moving party has made the appropriate showing, the court shall grant leave if it is consistent with 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2). 7 Although a pro se litigant need not make a “particularized showing” that he is entitled to 8 propound additional interrogatories, he must nonetheless demonstrate good cause. See McClellan 9 v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 1:10-cv-0386 LJO MJS (PC), 2015 WL 5732242, at *1 (E.D. 10 Cal. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Cantu v. Garcia, No. 1:09-cv-00177-AWI-DLB (PC), 11 2013 WL101667, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2013); Eichler v. Tilton, No. CIV-06-2894-JAM-CMK (P), 12 2010 WL 457334, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). 13 Additionally, a court may deny a pro se plaintiff’s request for additional interrogatories if 14 the plaintiff has not sufficiently specified why additional interrogatories are necessary. See 15 Doster v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-1415-DAD-GSA (PC), 2017 WL 1393509 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 16 2017) (denying the plaintiff’s request to serve additional interrogatories because he did not 17 explain the nature or subject matter of the additional interrogatories); McClellan, 2015 WL 18 5732242, at *2 (denying the plaintiff’s motion for additional interrogatories because he did not 19 specify what factual matters he sought clarification on or why he could not seek the information 20 through other discovery tools). Some courts have also held that proposed interrogatories must be 21 submitted with the motion in order for the court to properly evaluate the moving party’s need for 22 additional discovery. See Hardy v. Davis, No. 2:13-cv-0726-JAM-DB, 2017 WL 445723, at *3 23 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories deficient 24 where the plaintiff failed to submit the proposed interrogatories with the motion for the court’s 25 review); Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764-OWW-DLB (PC), 2008 WL 2018432, at *8 26 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 27 Plaintiff’s first motion seeks an additional 100 interrogatories for both defendants because 28 he anticipates needing dozens of interrogatories aimed at gathering information on his disallowed 1 property. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff has filed another motion seeking an additional 25 interrogatories 2 for only defendant Clendenin. ECF No. 34. The second motion includes the proposed 3 interrogatories. Id. at 4-11. With respect to plaintiff’s first motion, defendants oppose it, arguing 4 that plaintiff has yet to exhaust his permitted 25 interrogatories per defendant, and that his motion 5 is impermissibly vague, as it does not include proposed interrogatories.1 ECF No. 30. In 6 opposition to plaintiff’s second motion, defendants argue that plaintiff has not demonstrated good 7 cause for the additional interrogatories. ECF No. 35. Defendants additionally argue that 8 plaintiff’s request for additional interrogatories is more appropriately characterized as a request 9 for an additional 32 interrogatories due to discrete subparts. 10 Plaintiff’s first motion is denied; he has not submitted proposed interrogatories or 11 specified the nature or subject matter, apart from a general reference to his disallowed property, 12 of the additional interrogatories. Additionally, at the point of his first motion, plaintiff had yet to 13 exhaust his permitted interrogatories. 14 Plaintiff’s second motion, however, does include some proposed interrogatories. After 15 reviewing the proposed interrogatories, I find that plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient cause to 16 warrant the additional proposed interrogatories. However, plaintiff is warned that this order only 17 permits him to propound a total of 50 interrogatories on defendant Clendenin. Defendants have 18 represented in their moving papers that plaintiff has served more than 250 interrogatories on 19 Clendenin. Plaintiff does not have carte blanche authority to propound discovery on defendants. 20 This order contains limited authority for plaintiff to propound an additional 25 interrogatories on 21 Clendenin. 22 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order 23 Plaintiff seeks to modify the November 6, 2023 scheduling order to extend the discovery 24 cutoff by six months. ECF No. 28. As cause, plaintiff argues that there is a delay in receiving 25 mail at his institution and that he has outstanding discovery and pending motions. Id. While I am 26 1 Defendants’ opposition includes a declaration from their counsel stating that both 27 defendants received eleven interrogatories from plaintiff on November 20, 2023. Defendants served their responses to those interrogatories on January 4, 2024, and, as of January 30, 2024, 28 defendants have not received additional interrogatories from plaintiff. ECF No. 30-1 at 2. 1 | persuaded that additional time is warranted to complete discovery given plaintiff's stated reasons, 2 | Iam not persuaded that an additional six months is necessary. Accordingly, I will modify the 3 | scheduling order as follows: the deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing all 4 | motions to compel discovery, is August 30, 2024. All requests for discovery shall be served not 5 | later than July 12, 2024. 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs motion for leave to propound additional interrogatories, ECF No. 27, is 8 | denied without prejudice. 9 2. Plaintiffs motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 29, is granted in part. 10 a. The deadline for requesting discovery shall be served not later than July 12, 11 | 2024. 12 b. The deadline for completing discovery, including filing all motions to compel 13 | discovery, is extended to August 30, 2024. 14 3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to propound additional interrogatories, ECF No. 34, is 15 || granted. Plaintiff shall serve no more than 50 total interrogatories on defendant Clendenin. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ May 13, 2024 q_—— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28