Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BELL v. WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY

September 8, 2005.

DEMETRIC BELL, MARILYN BERRY, CATHERINE BROWN, KIMBERLY BUCHANAN, GILBERTO GONZALEZ, DELLA JARRETT, TIMMY LINK, EDDIE MANNING, JR., KIM NACHAMPASSACK, DUANE PARKS, BRENDA RILEY, DARNEL ROYAL, ROBIN SALLIS, VELMA SANDERS, BARBARA SMITH, TONY TRIPLETT, JANET WILKINS and FRED WYNNE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's August 24, 2005 Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Provide Full and Complete Responses to its December 31, 2004 Interrogatories. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. History

  On December 31, 2004, Defendant served six written interrogatories on Plaintiffs. On May 12, 2005, this court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel answers to the interrogatories and ordered production by June 27, 2005. Plaintiffs' answers were served in accordance with the court's order, but Defendant now maintains the "answers are grossly inadequate, incomplete, and duplicative of each other." Def.'s Mtn., at 3. Plaintiffs maintain their "answers are a diligent attempt to respond to defendant's interrogatories that far exceeds in detail the sort of interrogatory responses served by defendant." Pl.'s Resp., at 2.

  II. Analysis

  The court turns to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance in deciding a motion to compel more complete answers to interrogatories. Under Rule 33, which governs the use of interrogatories, interrogatories are intended to allow parties to prepare for trial, narrow the scope of the issues at hand, and to minimize the possibility of surprise at trial. According to Rule 33, every interrogatory must be "answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable." Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). There is a duty to provide full answers to interrogatories — i.e., answers should include all the information within the responding party's knowledge and control. See Bell v. Woodward Governor Co, No. 03 C 50190, 2005 WL 289963, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2005) (requiring Defendant to more fully respond to discovery requests).

  Although as a general matter, parties "may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim of defense of any party," discovery must have practical limits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Under Rule 26(b)(2), courts have the discretion to limit the use of otherwise permissible discovery methods if the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or unduly burdensome or expensive. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681-82 (7th Cir. 2002). In a motion to compel, the burden is on the responding party, here Plaintiffs, to convince the court that an interrogatory is objectionable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. In this case, the interrogatories at issue are contention interrogatories. Contention interrogatories, distinct from the identification interrogatories largely completed in this case, inquire into a party's opinions or "contentions" about a particular fact or application of the law to a fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c). A contention interrogatory may, under the rules, ask for the material or facts that support a party's contentions in a case. Id. Answers to such interrogatories are useful because they, amongst other things, aid the propounding party in "pinning down" a party's position and determining the proof required to rebut the party's position. However, as with identification interrogatories, courts have the discretion to limit the use of otherwise permissible contention interrogatories if the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or unduly burdensome or expensive. Patterson, 281 F.3d at 681-82; Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 445, 447 (D. Kan. 2000) (holding that an interrogatory requesting "each and every" fact and application of law to fact was overly broad and unduly burdensome because it would require "a laborious, time-consuming analysis, search, and description of incidental, secondary, and perhaps irrelevant and trivial details").

  The guidepost on the proper scope of contention interrogatories is to allow parties to prepare for trial by narrowing the scope of the issues and minimizing the possibility of surprise at trial. In order to accomplish this purpose, this court expects to find, at least, in answers to contention interrogatories those facts that a party intends to offer to prove their case-in-chief or intends to offer in defense. Anything less would frustrate the purpose of having contention interrogatories.

  Here, Defendant's interrogatories seek information regarding the following: (1) Plaintiffs' and charging parties' contentions that they were placed in a job, job code, job level, or salary range as a result of unlawful race and/or sex discrimination; (2) Plaintiffs' and charging parties' contentions that their wage rate is/was a result of race and/or sex discrimination; (3) Plaintiffs' assertions that other current or former minority employees were placed in a job, job code, job level, or salary range as a result of unlawful race and/or sex discrimination; (4) Plaintiffs' assertions that other current or former minority employees' wage rates were a result of unlawful race and/or sex discrimination; (5) all alleged discriminatory acts and/or omissions by Woodward that Plaintiffs believe were acts of discrimination or evidence of discrimination; and (6) the identification of all documents that Plaintiffs believe material to each paragraph of the Complaint and the reasons why Plaintiffs consider the documents material.

  At this point, the court does not intend to reject as overly broad or unduly burdensome all of Defendant's contention interrogatories that seek the underlying facts and supporting materials of Plaintiffs' case. However, the court also does not choose to charge Plaintiffs with the task of providing, in essence, a running narrative of their entire case, together with identifications of all knowledgeable persons and all supporting documents. There is no reason nor justification for this kind of indiscriminate discovery in this class action employment discrimination case with well over 200 class members and 18 named Plaintiffs.

  It is fairly clear, after reviewing and organizing Defendant's Interrogatories and Plaintiffs' Answers, where Plaintiffs' response lacks the clarity and completeness required by the Federal Rules.*fn1 While the court will not strike all the responses as "grossly inadequate" as requested by Defendant, the court finds that Defendant is entitled to some additional detail from Plaintiffs.

  The court will address the adequacy and inadequacy of each individual Answer below. Applicable to all Interrogatories, the court finds that Plaintiffs properly limited its answers to "Plaintiffs" excluding "Charging Parties" and to "race discrimination" excluding "sex discrimination."

  A. Interrogatory #1

  With regard to Interrogatory #1, Defendant states Plaintiffs have failed to list any single contention regarding what job levels or salary ranges are discriminatory, why certain job levels or salary ranges are discriminatory, who made discriminatory decisions, and the reasons they contend they are discriminatory. As a result, Defendant claims it is unable to discern what employment decisions Plaintiffs consider unlawful. Plaintiffs do not address Interrogatory #1 individually, but do state that their responses are detailed and any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.