Luckadue v. Leader Newspaper Inc
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Strike Pltf's Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents propounded on Garrick Feldman and Ilene Feldman. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 1/10/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LAURA L. LUCKADUE
LEADER NEWSPAPER, INC.
Pending is the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions and
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents propounded on Garrick Feldman and
Ilene Felman (the “Feldmans”). The Defendant argues that the Feldmans are not defendants in
the case, merely officers of the Defendant, and therefore they should not be subject to these
Rule 33(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
The interrogatories must be answered:
(A) by the party to whom they are directed; or
(B) if that party is a public or private corporation . . . by any officer or agent, who must
furnish the information available to the party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Plaintiff, acting pro se, should have propounded her discovery requests
upon the Defendant, the Leader Newspaper, Inc., instead of the Feldmans. The Defendant would
then determine which officer or agent is in the best position to furnish the requested information.
In this case, it makes no sense to strike the discovery and ask the Plaintiff to re-send the
requests to the Defendant when the Defendant is obviously in possession of the requests.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion to Strike (Docket # 24) should be DENIED. The
Defendant is directed to respond to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents propounded on the Feldmans as if they had been
propounded upon the Defendant as provided by Rule 33(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff is reminded to be
familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2012.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?