Opinion
05 Civ. 6459 (GEL) (RLE).
August 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff, Sherry Bender ("Bender"), filed this action alleging numerous civil rights violations during an altercation with authorities at the office of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), which ended in Bender's arrest. Before the Court is Bender's request to serve interrogatories which exceed the 25 allowed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 33(a). Bender explains that, as a pro se plaintiff, she is not likely to take depositions because of the cost, and therefore her interrogatories are critical and more questions should be permitted.
For the following reasons, Bender's motion is GRANTED to the extent that she will be allowed to serve 40 interrogatories on each defendant, including subparts as explained below. However, in re-formulating her proposed interrogatories, Bender should take note of the guidance provided herein.
II. DISCUSSION
FRCP 33(a) limits the number of interrogatories a party can serve to 25 per party, "including all discrete subparts." A "subpart" is one "not logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question," Cramer v. Fedco Auto. Components Co., Inc., 2004 WL 1574691, at *3-4 (W.D.N.Y. May 26, 2004) ( quoting Krawczyk v. City of Dallas, 2004 WL 614842, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2004)). Therefore, if a question listed as a subpart (e.g., 14(b)), can be answered independently from that preceding it (e.g., 14(a)), that question must be counted separately. See id. On the other hand, "multiple interrelated questions may constitute `a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately.'" Id. ( quoting Yeager v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 2002 WL 1976773, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 23, 2002)).
Given these rules, Bender's proposed interrogatories number well over 65, and include both subparts which must be counted as individual questions, as well as interrelated questions requesting time, place, persons and content to be stated separately. It is within the Court's discretion to allow additional interrogatories "to the extent consistent with the principles of [FRCP] 26(b)(2)." FRCP 33(a). A pro se plaintiff's inability to afford depositions is one justification for additional interrogatories. See, e.g., Riddle v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., 2003 WL 21982967, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2003) (allowing pro se plaintiff to serve additional interrogatories in lieu of depositions). Therefore, Bender will be allowed to serve 40 interrogatories per defendant. Discrete subparts will count towards this total.
Bender should reformulate her proposed interrogatories into more simple questions. Many of the questions, as stated, are repetitive and make requests that are not relevant to Bender's claims, or likely to lead to admissible evidence, as required by FRCP 26. For example, questions 13, 14, and 15, including subparts, all seek details as to which defendants personally observed certain events alleged in a police statement. While this is an appropriate area of inquiry, a description of the pieces of furniture Bender was alleged to have picked up and thrown around, and an estimation of how far those pieces of furniture were thrown are not relevant. Similarly, questions 18-20 appropriately inquire about the identity of witnesses of that same incident. However, the questions also ask for their exact location in the reception area of the SSA offices, and their "mental status, disability, and emotional disposition." The latter inquiries are not relevant.
Bender's proposed interrogatories also include questions that are conclusory or assume facts, which should be avoided in the re-formulated questions. For example, question 21(a) asks for a definition of "crazy." Question 6 asks if "it is proper police procedure to instantaneously seize an individual using brutal force of an alleged disorderly person on the hearsay of a civilian." Bender should take care to focus her questions on defendants' contentions and the facts she will need to prove her claims.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Bender's motion to serve more than 25 interrogatories is GRANTED to the extent that she will be allowed to serve 40 interrogatories, including discrete subparts, on each defendant.
SO ORDERED.