Filing 49

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel Document No. #27 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 05/20/2015.(lcdar1, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-00857 TSC/DAR v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. ORDER Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel Discovery, Privilege Log, and Further Initial Disclosures (Document No. 27) is pending for determination by the undersigned. Upon consideration of the motion; Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s opposition (Document No. 29); Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendant’s reply (Document No. 30); the arguments of counsel on January 22, 2015 and again on March 19, 2015, and the entire record herein, the motion is determined as follows: (1) The motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the discovery disputes resolved by the parties: Requests for Admission Nos. 7, 8; Interrogatory No. 7; and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8 (see Reply at 9, 14-16). (2) With respect to the requests for production of documents which Public.Resource.Org, Inc., in the responses it served, agreed to produce (see Motion at 8, 16, 17, 19, 23), such documents shall be served by no later than June 3, 2015. 2 American Educational Research Association, Inc., et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (3) To the extent which Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants request an order directing Public.Resource.Org., Inc. to supplement enumerated responses, said request is DENIED. All parties are reminded that it is incumbent upon each of them to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (4) The request of Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim Defendants to compel an answer to their contention interrogatory, and to compel the production of the documents on which the answer is based (see Document No. 27 at 13-14), is GRANTED. See, e.g., Barnes v. Dist. of Columbia, 283 F.R.D. 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2012) (“[T]his court does not prohibit contention interrogatories that ask a party to state ‘all the facts upon which it bases a contention.’”) (citation omitted); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, 281 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2011) (“‘Contention interrogatories’ that ask a party what it contends or to state all the facts upon which it bases a contention are perfectly legitimate.”) (citation omitted). 1 Public.Resource.Org., Inc. shall serve its answer to the interrogatory, and produce the documents responsive to the request for production of documents, by no later than June 4, 2015. (5) In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. It is, this 20th day of May, 2015, SO ORDERED. _ /s/______________ DEBORAH A. ROBINSON United States Magistrate Judge 1 Public.Resource.Org, Inc., relies principally on Everett v. USAir Grp., Inc., 165 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1995) for the proposition that its responses to these discovery requests should be deferred until “late in the discovery period [.]” Oppn at 9. However, the undersigned finds that the court in Everett did not state so sweeping a proposition, and that the holding that no response was required “at this time[]” was confined to the facts of that case. See id. at 3.

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?