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

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

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