O'Brien

DISCUSSION

15 At issue are Plaintiff’s Interrogatories numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. 16 Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion asserting its untimeliness because it 17 was brought “more than one hundred days after Defendants served 18 responses, and seventy days after the motion to compel cut-off date.” (ECF 19 No. 60 at 1). In their Statement of Discovery Dispute, Defendants 20 supplemented their responses and object substantively to the Interrogatories 21 at issue. (ECF No. 60-1). In addition, Plaintiff further requests reasonable expenses in bringing this Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 58). The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. Plaintiff has offered no justification for the delay. The Court could deny Plaintiff’s Motion solely due to its untimeliness. However, taking into consideration Plaintiff’s pro se and incarcerated status, the pending issues will be addressed on their A. Interrogatories Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33 governs interrogatories to parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of under Rule 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party…