Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al

Filing 38

Discovery Order re: 35 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Amanda Lewis. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/30/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

AMANDA LEWIS,

No. C 12-1096 CW (MEJ)
Plaintiff,

8
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER RE: DOCKET
NO. 35

9
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

On July 26, 2013, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter regarding Defendant

14 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.’s verification of its original responses to Plaintiff Amanda Lewis’s First
15 Set of Interrogatories. Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff served the interrogatories on July 10, 2012, and
16 Blizzard provided responses on August 27, 2012. Id. at 1. The responses did not include a
17 verification. Id. The original responses identified Blizzard employees Brian Farr and Mickey Neilson
18 as potential witnesses to recording sessions at issue in this case. Id. However, at his deposition on
19 June 26, 2013, Neilson testified that he was not present at either recording session. Id. at 1-2. When
20 shown the interrogatory responses, Neilson testified that the information concerning his presence was
21 not accurate. Id. at 2. Blizzard subsequently served Plaintiff with a set of amended responses,
22 including a verification signed by another Blizzard employee. Id. at 2.
23

Plaintiff argues that Blizzard must be compelled to provide a verification for its original

24 responses. Id. at 5. Blizzard argues that it cannot attest under oath to matters that it has now
25 discovered to be incorrect and that have been properly and timely corrected. Id. at 6.
26

Answers to interrogatories must be in writing, given under oath, and signed by the person

27 giving the answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (5). The purpose of the verification requirement is to
28 ensure that the answers are in a form that is admissible at summary judgment and trial. See, e.g.,

1 Saria v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 536, 538-39 (S.D. W.Va. 2005); Cascade Yarns, Inc. v.
2 Knitting Fever, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47882, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2012). A party has a
3 duty to supplement responses in a timely manner “if the party learns that in some material respect the
4 disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has
5 not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process. . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
6 P. 26(e)(1)(A). This rule expressly contemplates that a party may add to or change an answer. Id.
7

Pursuant to Rule 33(b)(5), the unverified response in the August 27 Response to

8 Interrogatories was no answer at all. Instead, it is the verified Amended Response which constitutes
9 a responsive answer to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. Cascade Yarns, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47882, at
10 *8 (finding plaintiff’s motion to compel verification to previous version of responses moot where

12 Plaintiff argues that Cascade is inapplicable because the defendant provided essentially the same
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 defendant provided a verified response in the form of a third supplemental response to interrogatory).

13 answers in all responses, whereas Blizzard has provided substantially different answers in its original
14 and amended responses. Id. at 6. However, the defendant in Cascade did not provide the same
15 responses. In its second supplemental response, the defendant referred to a release from liability for
16 “any claims.” Cascade, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47882, at *5. In its third supplemental response, the
17 defendant referred to the removal of certain factual allegations from its counter-claims. Id. at *6.
18 These are not the same responses, and the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument to be without merit.
19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel verification of Blizzard’s interrogatory responses is
20 DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23 Dated: July 30, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2