New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Interrogatories — How to Count Subparts for Purposes of the Limit of 25 Interrogatories per Party

Download PDF

Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts." The question is what constitutes just “one” interrogatory. From Mitchell Co. v. Campus, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47505 (S.D. Ala. June 16, 2008):

● “While, as one court has indicated, ‘[t]he word, “discrete,” essentially means, “separate[,]”’ …, the majority of district courts to have addressed the issue are in agreement that the process of ‘[i]dentifying a 'discrete subpart' has proven difficult.’”

● “[M]ost district courts … have adopted and applied the related question test to determine whether the subparts are discrete, asking whether the particular subparts are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.”

● “In other words, if the first question can be answered fully and completely without answering the second question, then the second question is totally independent of the first and not factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question…. Genuine subparts should not be counted as separate interrogatories. However, discrete or separate questions should be counted as separate interrogatories, notwithstanding they are joined by a conjunctive word and may be related."

● Information and Corroborating Documents = 2 Interrogatories. “The first and most obvious example is the combining in a single interrogatory of a demand for information and a demand for the documents that pertain to that event. Clearly, these are two distinct demands because knowing an event occurred is entirely different from learning about the documents that evidence it occurred." [Citation omitted.]

● Witness Plus Substance of Testimony = 1 Interrogatory. “The primary question is directed to identifying any Mitchell Company person with personal knowledge or information, etc., about plaintiff's claims or allegations in the complaint. The secondary question asks that for each person identified in response to the primary question, the facts and information known by each such person. The … facts and information specifically known by a party and its employees are logically and factually subsumed within the primary question asking for identification of individuals possessing relevant facts and information about the complaint and the claims contained therein.”

● Attorney-Client Relationship and Details of Relationship = 1 Interrogatory. “The primary question asks for a list of all legal matters plaintiff claims it established an attorney-client relationship with Matthews. The … four remaining inquires about dates each relationship began and ended, the scope of each relationship, and the work performed by the defendant during the relationship are all logically and factually subsumed within the primary inquiry about identifying each attorney-client relationship.”

● Work Performed & Reasons Unsatisfactory = 2 Interrogatories. “First, the interrogatory asks plaintiff to state, with respect to each legal matter identified in response to Interrogatory 2, whether Matthews failed to perform satisfactorily, or made any omission in his performance of work. The related subpart contained in this interrogatory asks plaintiff to specifically state how Matthews' performance was unsatisfactory. The undersigned, however, cannot find that Matthews' request for the identification of all employees, etc. of TMC with knowledge of, or who possess documents relating to, Matthews' unsatisfactory performance is logically and factually subsumed in the identification of such unsatisfactory performance.

● Identification of Employees and Dates of Employment = 1 Interrogatory. “The primary question requests identification of all employees, etc., of TMC who had any written or oral communications with Matthews. The … three remaining inquires about dates each such identified employee's employment with plaintiff, the position(s) held by such individual, and job descriptions for each identified individual are all logically and factually subsumed within the primary inquiry about identifying each employee, etc., who communicated with Matthews.”

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice