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)

Download PDF
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?