Larson v. Trans Union , LLC

Filing 123

Order Denying Request to Compel by Hon. William H. Orrick re 122 Discovery Letter Brief. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIAN DOUGLAS LARSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
COMPEL

v.
TRANS UNION , LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 122

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 3:12-cv-05726-WHO

12
13

The parties submitted a joint discovery brief in which defendant seeks an order compelling

14

plaintiff to supplement his responses to TransUnion’s Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15. Joint

15

Statement re: Discovery Dispute (“Joint Br.”)(Dkt. No. 122). Defendant seeks “[d]etailed

16

narrative answers stating all facts supporting Plaintiff’s contentions that TransUnion is in violation

17

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and has deliberately refused to follow the Third

18

Circuit’s ruling in Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Circ. 2010).” Id. at 1. It also

19

insists that “[p]laintiff’s response fails to state the objectively clear legal authority … that

20

[p]laintiff contends should have put TransUnion on notice [of willfully violating the FCRA] in

21

2011[.]” Id.

22

Plaintiff urges that defendant’s request is untimely, since responses were served more than

23

two and a half years ago, and that his “response adequately alerted [d]efendant to the primary

24

thrust behind [p]laintiff’s theory of liability and the particular case on which he intends to rely to

25

prove that [d]efendant’s violation of the FCRA was willful[.]” Id. at 3. He also contends that the

26

information sought by defendant is akin to a legal conclusion, and therefore not suitable for an

27

interrogatory. Id.

28

Defendant’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s duty to supplement interrogatory responses

1

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) is triggered only “if the party learns that in some

2

material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

3

Plaintiff has indicated that “merits discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff has engaged an expert who

4

will further flesh out [p]laintiff’s developing theory of liability as it related to [d]efendant’s

5

inadequate software testing.” Joint Br. at 3. If fact discovery develops a basis for more specific

6

responses, he should supplement.

7

To the extent that defendant’s request seeks legal authority divorced from the facts,
plaintiff need not respond to questions of “pure law.” See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe,

9

RUTTER GROUP PRAC. GUIDE: FEDERAL CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL, Ch. 11(IV)-B (The

10

Rutter Group 2016)(“On the other hand, Rule 33 does not permit interrogatories directed to issues

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

of ‘pure law’[.]”). Plaintiff is not required to write his brief on a motion for summary judgment in

12

his responses to interrogatories. See id. (“The mental impressions and opinions of the responding

13

party's attorney are also normally protected from disclosure as attorney work product[.]”).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2017

16
17
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2