During an Ex Parte hearing where I asked for couple Motions but only the motion for leave - my amended complaint, was approved. The other motion, Compel for further responses -after defendants evaded the interrogatory for several months, was not to be heard until May 14.
This new amended complaint opens several new issues as it added 13 DOEs in the lawsuit where I'd need Defendants to give me these people address and name as DMV refused to release it by the Subpoena. Hence I feel like I have to issue a second set of interrogatories to address several new issues but I already used up the 35 Questions!
So now my question is (1) what chance the judge would dismiss this Compel motion for further responses & sanction due to the new amend one added 13 more defendants? The interrogatory set 1 was mirrored to the Court Form DISC (2) Because of that possibility, should I send out a new interrogatory questions for this new amended complaint instead just sit and wait for the Compel hearing by sending a Meet and Confer letter to the defendants to see if they agree with my proposed stipulation for additional discovery (interrogatory set 2) due to the new Amend one and ask for 35 additional new questions? (3) Or file a Motion for discovery to exceed discovery limit? Which one is a correct path I should choose for my problem?
This is a limited civil lawsuit. Thank you.
1 Answer from Attorneys
This question is way too complex for a free internet Q&A situation. What I can tell you is two things. 1. You are in over your head, which is true of virtually all pro se plaintiffs. 2. In over 30 years of litigation practice, I have never once seen a pro se plaintiff win a case against a defendant represented by a lawyer.
My recommendation to you, if you need to proceed in pro per, is to find a lawyer who will accept a "Limited Scope Representation" who can provide "on call" guidance when things like this come up. Try using the county bar association lawyer referral service in the county in which the case is pending to find one.