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

Samples of Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories — Party May Not Refuse to Answer Interrogatories, Then Claim the Interrogatories Are Cumulative of Later Deposition — Examples of Meritorious Cumulativeness Objections

Download PDF

From SEC v. Berry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39907 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011):

[Sample Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories.] The SEC correctly points out that none of the authority cited by Berry supports her claim that the interrogatories are, "by [their] nature," overbroad and unduly burdensome. Indeed, the cases cited by Berry are easily distinguished from the situation here. In JJCO, Inc. v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc., CIV. NO. 08-00419 SOM/LEK, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102121, at *12 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2009), the plaintiff sought "all correspondence between Isuzu and GM over a four-year period," all of which could not possibly relate to the plaintiff's claims. In Brown's Crew Car of Wyo. LLC v. State Transp. Auth., Case No.: 2:08-cv-00777-RLH-LRL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39469, at *14-15, 18-19 (D. Nev. May 1, 2009), the intervenor sought information that was "well beyond the scope and purpose of this action" and even appeared "calculated to needlessly increase the cost of litigation." And in In re Ebay Seller Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-1882 JF (RS), 2008 WL 5212170, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008), the court determined that the defendant's contention interrogatories seeking "all facts" supporting the plaintiff's allegations were inappropriate at that time and so it denied the defendant's motion without prejudice after noting that there was no dispute that the plaintiff would have to respond fully to the interrogatories at some point.

In this case, though, the SEC's interrogatories request that Berry describe conversations she had with specific individuals about a specific topic that is directly relevant to this action. Moreover, Berry has been aware of these interrogatories for more than two years, so she cannot now claim that she has been caught off guard by them. Accordingly, the Court rejects Berry's "burdensome" argument.

B. Whether the Interrogatories Are Cumulative of Berry's Deposition Testimony

Berry next argues that answering the interrogatories would be cumulative of her deposition testimony. She cites her deposition testimony where the SEC asked whether, for instance, she had ever had discussions about stock options with the individuals mentioned in the interrogatories. *** "These questions and testimony," she contends, "demonstrates that the SEC is simply seeking what it already has." Id. at 7.

The SEC initially argues that Berry waived any "cumulative" objection since she did not include it in either her original or amended interrogatory responses and only mentions it now. Docket No. 195 ("Reply") at 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) ("Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.")).... The SEC's argument is well-taken.

Even if the Court excuses this failure, though, the SEC argues that defendant cannot be allowed to refuse to answer interrogatories, then attend a deposition, and then claim that the deposition testimony should suffice as a response to the interrogatories. ... Indeed, none of the cases cited by Berry support such a tactic. Instead, the cases she cites merely support the unremarkable proposition that Rule 26 is designed in part to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or that could be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Sloan v. Oakland Police Dep't., No. C-00-4117 CW (JCS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25100, at *15 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2006) (noting, among other things, that should defendants bring a motion to compel responses to interrogatories served before plaintiff's deposition, such a motion will only be granted if the additional interrogatory responses sought are not duplicative of information already obtained, through deposition or otherwise); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Services, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-2304-EEO, 168 F.R.D. 295, 306 (D. Kan. 1996) ("That litigants may engage in successive forms of discovery 'is not a license to engage in repetitious, redundant and tautological inquiries.'") (quoting Richlin v. Sigma Design West, Ltd., 88 F.R.D. 634, 640 (E.D. Cal. 1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Penk v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Education, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10463, at *1-2 (D. Or. Dec. 23, 1983) (defendant had taken extensive depositions of most of plaintiffs' experts and also had the reports the experts prepared for use at trial, so defendant had had "complete access to the requested information through the other discovery devices it has chosen to use").

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

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

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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