Roebuck v. McCallister

Filing 29

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 19 Motion for Hearing; denying 21 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 24 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/29/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY J. ROEBUCK
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 4:10-CV-0248 BSM

GRADY M. McCALLISTER and
JOE M. McCALLISTER

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On January 27, 2011, defendants moved [Doc. No. 15] to compel answers to
interrogatories and requests for document production. Four days later they received answers
from the plaintiff, but found her responses lacking. Defendants then requested time to solve
the matter without court action [Doc. No. 17], and asked plaintiff to respond by February 21,
2011. On March 3, 2011, the defendants renewed their motion to compel. [Doc. No. 24].
Plaintiff objected and responded on March 17, 2011. [Doc. No. 26]. That same day,
defendants moved for a hearing on the motion to compel. [Doc. No. 24]. For the reasons set
forth below, the motions [Doc. Nos. 15 and 21] to compel are DENIED.
The parties dispute the number of interrogatories that defendants have submitted or
were entitled to submit. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
serve on any party no more than twenty-five interrogatories. In this case there are two named
defendants, Grady and Joe McCallister. Where there are multiple defendants, each defendant
is permitted to serve the allotted number of interrogatories on the other party. Defendants
were entitled to a total of fifty interrogatories and plaintiffs should have responded to fifty
interrogatories. There is nothing to support plaintiff’s contention that defendants each

intended to submit the exact same interrogatories.
Plaintiff argues that each discrete subpart of the defendants’ interrogatories should
count as a separate interrogatory. This is consistent with the text of Rule 33(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, at this point the plaintiffs have responded to a
total of twenty-five interrogatories. Rather than grant the motion to compel, the defendants
will be allowed to reformulate and submit their remaining interrogatories.
The motions to compel [Doc. Nos. 15 and 21] are DENIED, but defendants have
twenty-five remaining interrogatories and may submit those interrogatories to the plaintiff.
Because the motion to compel is denied, any ruling on specific objections is withheld. The
other related motions [Doc. Nos. 19 and 24] are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2011.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2