STURGILL v. WILLIAMS COUNTY, 4:15-cv-112. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. North Dakota
Number: infdco20160610d73
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a "Request for Additional Interrogatories" filed plaintiff on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff requests leave to serve defendants with 10 additional interrogatories, which he avers are necessitated by defendants answers to his previous interrogatories. Notably, he does not provide the court with any indication as to how may interrogatories he has served upon the part
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a "Request for Additional Interrogatories" filed plaintiff on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff requests leave to serve defendants with 10 additional interrogatories, which he avers are necessitated by defendants answers to his previous interrogatories. Notably, he does not provide the court with any indication as to how may interrogatories he has served upon the parti..
More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is a "Request for Additional Interrogatories" filed plaintiff on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff requests leave to serve defendants with 10 additional interrogatories, which he avers are necessitated by defendants answers to his previous interrogatories. Notably, he does not provide the court with any indication as to how may interrogatories he has served upon the parties to date.
On June 8, 2016, Defendants Williams County and Ken Stenberg ("County Defendants") filed a response to plaintiff's motion. They advise that, to date, they have been served with one discovery request that can fairly be characterized as an interrogatory. Consequently, they take the position that plaintiff's request is premature as he has yet to exhaust the 25 interrogatories he is permitted by default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). In so doing, they advise that they will respond to plaintiff's additional discovery requests should they be served in a timely manner.
As it does not appear that plaintiff has exhausted the 25 interrogatories he is permitted under the rules and given that the County Defendants have advised they will response to plaintiff's 10 interrogatories if timely served, the court finds plaintiff's request (Doc. No. 57) superfluous and therefore DENIES it without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
