Julian Pierce Williams v. Paul Olthoff, et al.

Summary

The court denied without prejudice Plaintiff Julian Pierce Williams’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories and requests for admission. The court found that Plaintiff had not shown whether he had used the previously authorized discovery, identified the number or contents of the proposed additional requests, or made a particularized showing that the additional discovery was necessary.

Holdings

1. Leave to serve additional interrogatories was denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to make a particularized showing that the additional discovery was necessary and did not adequately identify the amount or content of the proposed discovery.
2. Leave to serve additional requests for admission was denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide a particularized explanation of why the additional discovery was necessary and did not specify the number or contents of the proposed requests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff made the particularized showing required to obtain leave to serve interrogatories beyond the limits in the Federal Rules and the court's scheduling and discovery order.
2. Whether Plaintiff showed that additional requests for admission should be permitted despite the court's authority under Rule 26(b)(2) to limit such discovery.

Disposition

other