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
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?