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 — What Are “Discrete Subparts” for Purposes of Limit of 25?

Download PDF

Carpenter v. Donegan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35176 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2012):

The permissible number of Interrogatories is controlled by Rule 33(a) which reads in part, "[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 crucible of our discovery disagreement turns on what is meant by "all discrete subparts." Unfortunately, the statute does not provide a further definition to guide litigators and the Court as to what is meant by this phrase or definitely settles this presumptive limitation on the number of interrogatories. Legal Commentators and the courts who have grappled with this finite issue raised a similar lament and have considered their review as a matter of first impression.

To confound us more, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee contemplated the issue before us, yet only provided an abbreviated instruction on how to address the problem:

Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as "subparts" questions that seek information about discrete separate subjects. However, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) advisory committee's notes 1993 Amendment; see also Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 2004 WL 1699009, at *6 (D.Conn Apr. 28, 2004) (joining discrete separate subparts into a single interrogatory is improper); Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 443-44 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (survey of cases).

This Court as well as others have found this rather brief analysis insufficient to be a guide on what can become a rather complicated and contorted maze in interpreting interrogatories and their subparts as "discrete separate subjects." What may appear to be a simple process on its face, is nothing but the contrary. To delineate between an excessively broad and comprehensive drafting of interrogatories and their subparts and properly narrowly constructed interrogatories is rather difficult to discern. Without a bright-line rule, disagreement between litigants and the courts are apt to occur.

Of these courts that have confronted this issue, there has developed a common denominator on how to weigh an interrogatory's subparts as independent and discrete. An interrogatory's subparts are to be counted as separate and discrete subparts "if they are not logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question." Madison v. Nesmith, 2008 WL 619171, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2008) (quoting Cramer v. Fedco Auto. Component Co., Inc., 2004 WL 1574691, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. May 26, 2004) (citations omitted); Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22326563, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2003) (citing, inter alia, Safeco of Am. v. Rawston, 181 F.R.D. at 444-45 (ruling that a subpart is discrete and regarded as a separate interrogatory when it is logically or factually independent of the question posed by the basic interrogatory)); 7 James Wm. Moore et al, Moore's Federal Practice, § 33.30[2] (3d ed. 2003) ("The better view is that subparts be counted as part of one interrogatory if they are logically and necessarily related to the primary question."). That is, 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 question and not factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question. Madison v. Nesmith, 2008 WL 619171, at *3) (citing, inter alia, Cramer v. Fedco, 2004 WL 1574691, at *4. Stated another way, if the subparts cannot be fairly and reasonably characterized as closely related to the first part of interrogatory, it is therefore discrete and separate. Id. Indeed, for example, if a response to the first part of a two-part interrogatory is "implicit in a response to the [second] [p]art [] . . . [then] a complete answer to the latter [part] requires an answer to the former [part]. The two subparts are not discrete and may not be characterized as [independent interrogatories]." Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22326563, at * 1; see also Thompson v. Lantz, 2009 WL 3157563, at *1 (D.Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) ("A subpart is discrete and therefore regarded as a separate interrogatory when it is logically or factually independent of the questions posed by the basic interrogatory.") (quotation marks and citation omitted) & Nyfield v. Virgin Islands Tel. Corp., 200 F.R.D. 246, 247-48 (D. Virgin Island, May 10, 2001) (ruling that we should examine whether the first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question and if the subsequent questions can stay alone then they are independent of the primary question).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(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

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

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