AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

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, )

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.