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.

Mitchell v. Nesemeier

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

July 8, 2013

CYNTHIA JEANNE MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH W. NESEMEIER et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

The parties in this matter are nearing the scheduled end of the discovery process in a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 case. Defendants tendered their first set of interrogatories to Plaintiff on March 3, 2013; answers were due on April 2, 2013. On April 7, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he would respond within a few days. Jumping forward to April 23, 2013, still no response had been received. Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed Defendants' counsel and stated that his client had become ill while working on the responses to interrogatories, but that they were close to completing the response. Plaintiff finally responded to the interrogatories on May 8, 2013. In the response, Plaintiff objected to the last three interrogatories and no verification was attached as required.

At a Rule 37.2 conference, held by the parties on May 9, 2013, Plaintiff agreed to amend answers to Interrogatories 1, 2, 6, 8, 18, and 22. Plaintiff also agreed to withdraw objections and answer Interrogatories 9 and 19 by May 16, 2013. On May 17, Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed Defense counsel stating only that he would need another fourteen days to complete the answers. On June 5, 2013, Defense counsel sent an e-mail to Plaintiff's counsel and requested that he provide the supplemental and amended responses by June 6, 2013. Defendants have not received the Responses to date. Defendants have filed a Motion to Compel seeking an order that Plaintiff amend and supplement her responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, 6, 8, 18, and 22, remove objections to answer Interrogatories 9 and 19, and provide a verification of the answers, as agreed to during the Rule 37.2 conference, within seven days and that they be awarded attorneys' fees.

The Defendants also moved the court to compel medical authorizations. This issue appears to be moot, however, as it has been reported that Plaintiff has complied with the request. Therefore, the court will not address the issue in this opinion.

II. Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories

In her response to the motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that answering Interrogatories 6, 8, 24, and 25 would require culling through the discovery material that the Defendants have provided to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff cites Rule 33(d) and believes that counsel for Defendants could just as easily go through those materials as counsel for Plaintiff. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)

Rule 33(d) states:

[i]f the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining... or summarizing a party's business records ..., and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: (1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could....
Id. (emphasis added).

Rule 33(d) clearly involves only parties' business records. The records in question here are medical records - not a party's business records. Thus, Rule 33(d) is inapplicable. Even if Rule 33(d) were applicable, the Plaintiff fails to specify in sufficient detail where the answers to interrogatories could be located within the records and is in violation of the rule. See Id.

Plaintiff also objects to Interrogatories 9 and 19 as they are allegedly "overly burdensome." However, Rule 33(b)(4) states that objections must be stated "with specificity" and any objection not stated in a timely objection is waived, absent good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). With respect to Plaintiff's objections to Interrogatories 9 and 19, Plaintiff did not meet the specificity standard required in Rule 33(b)(4) and subsequently withdrew her objection to these interrogatories at the parties' Rule 37.2 conference.

Plaintiff further argues that because Interrogatory 2 contained several subparts, answering 23, 24, and 25 is not required. "Interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory... if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question, " Defendants maintain that the subparts in Interrogatory 2 are logically and factually subsumed and related to each other. Bell v. Woodward Governor Co., Inc., 2005 WL 3299179. Interrogatory 2 provides:

Please state the full name, address, and telephone number of each person who (a) witnessed or claims to have witnessed any of the events, conduct, injuries, or damages alleged in the Complaint, and state the nature and substance of their knowledge; (b) was present or claims to have been present during any of the events, conduct, injuries, or damages alleged in the Complain and state the nature and substance of their knowledge; (c) has, claims to have or is believed by you to have any knowledge of the events, conduct, injuries, or damages alleged in the Complaint, or 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.