Fluid Equipment International, LTD v. Reddy-Buffaloes Pump, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting Defendants' 36 Discovery Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to respond to Defendants' additional interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/11/2016. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
FLUID EQUIPMENT INTERNATIONAL,
LTD.,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-74

v.
REDDY-BUFFALOES PUMP, INC. and
BUFFALOES FIRE PUMP, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Discovery Motion for Leave to Serve
Additional Interrogatories. (Doc. 36.) For the reasons and in the manner set forth below, the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
BACKGROUND
Defendants collectively served 23 interrogatories upon Plaintiff on November 6, 2015,
and a second set of 25 interrogatories on May 3, 2016. (Id. at p. 1.) Defendants filed their
Motion on June 13, 2016, after Plaintiff objected to the second set of interrogatories. (Id.)
Plaintiff states that Defendants have already reached the standard limit of 25 interrogatories laid
out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) and that there is no need for additional
interrogatories. (Doc. 41, p. 1). Defendants respond that they are entitled to a total of fifty
interrogatories (twenty-five interrogatories per Defendant). (Doc. 42.) Additionally, Defendants
argue that the additional interrogatories meet the scope of discovery set forth by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The discovery period in this case will expire on August 20, 2016.
(Doc. 43.)

DISCUSSION
Defendants have consistently litigated this case as a single unit. They are represented by
the same counsel, and they have jointly filed their notices, discovery requests, and motions
(including the instant motion).

Courts have repeatedly rejected such collective parties’

arguments that each member of the collective is entitled to the full allotment of the number of
interrogatories allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 or the number of requests for
production allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. See, e.g., Allen v. Sch. Bd. for Santa
Rosa Cty., Fla., No. 3:10CV142/MCR/CJK, 2011 WL 1831764, at *2–3 (N.D. Fla. May 12,
2011) (citing New York for Zito v. Leasecomm Corp., 233 F.R.D. 395, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2006);
McCarthy v. Paine Webber Grp., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 448, 449 (D. Conn. 1996)). Thus, Defendants
cannot “now decamp into [separate] regiments, in order to gain some advantage in the skirmish
lawyers call discovery.” Allen, 3:10CV142/MCR/CJK, 2011 WL 1831764, at *3. Rather,
Defendants should have filed a Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories prior to
actually serving them upon Plaintiff. Indeed, parties should ordinarily anticipate and address the
need to exceed the standard number of interrogatories at the conference required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(f).
Nonetheless, Defendants offer other compelling reasons for the Court to permit them to
propound their additional interrogatories. 1 They explain that the interrogatories are proportional
to the issues at stake in this ligation; that only Plaintiff knows the information sought; that the
interrogatories will preserve resources by likely preventing the need to depose one of Plaintiff’s
officers located in another country; that the issues in the interrogatories are central to the parties’
claims and defenses; and that Plaintiff can obtain the information with minimal time and
1

These arguments distinguish Defendants from the proponent of discovery in Allen.
3:10CV142/MCR/CJK, 2011 WL 1831764, at *3 (“The sole argument raised by the School Board in the
motion to compel is that each defendant is entitled to propound 25 interrogatories for a total of 75.”)

2

expense. (Doc. 36, pp. 2–4.) Plaintiff’s scant Response ignores these arguments and baldly
contends that Defendants’ Motion “simply does not set forth any justification for the need for
additional Interrogatories in this case.” (Doc. 41, p. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide
any information that Defendants’ Interrogatories are unduly burdensome or that they request
information outside the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
CONCLUSION
Consequently, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(A) and 33(a)(1),
and after careful consideration and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the
date of this Order to respond to Defendants’ additional interrogatories. 2
Moreover, given the recent discovery disputes in this case, the Court imposes the
following measures that shall apply to the remainder of this case. It is hereby ORDERED that
the following steps be undertaken by all parties prior to the filing of any discovery motions
including, but not limited to, a motion to compel, motion to quash, motion for a protective order,
motion for leave, or motion for sanctions.
1. The parties are strongly encouraged to informally resolve all discovery issues and
disputes without the necessity of Court intervention. In that regard, the parties are first
required to confer and fully comply with Rules 26(c)(1) and 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 26.5, by undertaking a sincere, good faith effort to try
to resolve all differences without Court action or intervention.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) provides that a “responding party must serve its answers and
any objections [to interrogatories] within thirty days after being served with the interrogatories. A shorter
or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or ordered by the Court.” Defendants served Plaintiff
with their additional interrogatories on May 3, 2016. Nonetheless, given Plaintiff’s non-frivolous
objection regarding the number of interrogatories already served, additional time is warranted for Plaintiff
to respond.

3

2. In the event that reasonable, good faith efforts have been made by all parties to confer
and attempt to resolve any differences, without success, the parties are then required to
schedule a telephonic conference with the Magistrate Judge in an effort to try to resolve
the discovery dispute prior to the filing of any motions. 3 The parties shall exhaust the
first two steps of the process before any motions, briefs, memorandums of law, exhibits,
deposition transcripts, or any other discovery materials are filed with the Court.
3. If the dispute still cannot be resolved following a telephonic conference with the
Magistrate Judge, then the Court will entertain a discovery motion. In connection with
the filing of any such motions, the moving party shall submit the appropriate
certifications to the Court as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26(c)(1)
and 37(a)(2).
4. The Court will refuse to hear any discovery motion unless the parties have made a
sincere, good faith effort to resolve the dispute and all of the above-identified steps have
been strictly complied with. A failure to fully comply with all of the prerequisite steps
may result in a denial of any motion with prejudice and may result in an award of costs
and reasonable attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of July, 2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3

The parties may schedule such a conference by contacting the Magistrate Judge’s Courtroom Deputy
Clerk.

4