ROWE v. FINNAN et al

Filing 84

ORDER granting Defts' 73 Motion to Compel (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/21/2013. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

REV. JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN FINNAN,
ALBERTA POTTER,
CHAPLIN DODD,
CHAPLIN ROGERS,
DANIEL BODLOVICH,
DENNIS DAVIS,
BRUCE HEMLING,
EDWIN BUSS,
HOWARD MORTON,
KRISTY RICHARDSON,
LARRY FOWLER,
L.A. VANNATTA,
LISA ASH,
MICHELLE PAVESE,
STEPHEN HALL,
WALTER PERTERSON,
WAYNE SCAIFE,
WILLIAM WILSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-cv-00524-JMS-MJD

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Alan Finnan, Alberta Potter, Chaplain
Dodd, Chaplain Rogers, Daniel, Bodlovich, Dennis Davis, Bruce Helming, Edwin Buss, Howard
Morton, Kristi Richardson, Larry Fowler, L.A. Vannatta, Lisa Ash, Michael Pavese, Stephen
Hall, Walter Peterson, Wayne, Scaife, and William Wilson’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s Response to Certain of Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. [Dkt. 73.] The Court
being duly advised, GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Rowe claims that a policy of the Indiana Department of Corrections is
overbroad, in violation of his due process rights. After Defendants served their First Set of
Interrogatories, Mr. Rowe subsequently objected to interrogatory nos. 3-18. [Dkt. 73-1.] In the
objections, Mr. Rowe contends that: (1) the interrogatory exceeds the limit of interrogatories
allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1); (2) Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint already answers this
interrogatory; and (3) the demands of the interrogatory are unduly burdensome. [Dkt. 73-1.] In
response to these objections, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to
Certain of Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. [Dkt. 73.]
II.

Discussion1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered
by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than twenty-five written
interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Rule 33 does not define
“discrete subparts,” and the Seventh Circuit lacks a clear rule or test to define the term. Bell v.
Woodward Governor Co., No. 03-C-50190, 2005 WL 3829134, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June, 30, 2005)
(noting that there remains a lack of a clear and easily applied rule about how subparts should be
counted in the Seventh Circuit). The interpretation recommended by Moore’s Federal Practice
suggests that “interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory . . . if they are
logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Id.
1

Plaintiff asserts that he filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal regarding his Eighth Amendment challenge to the
visitation policy. [Dkt. 73-1 at 9.] Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed after Defendants filed an
answer, so the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was not effective. If the parties wish to voluntarily dismiss those
claims, the parties may file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41
(a)(1)(ii).

(quoting Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997); 7 Moore's
Federal Practice, § 33.30[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)).
Plaintiff first asserts that Defendants’ interrogatory exceeds the limit of interrogatories
allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). However, the Court need not address this issue directly
because “the court may alter the limits in these rules on the number of depositions and
interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Defendants may
have served over twenty-five interrogatories, but it is within the Court’s discretion to increase the
limit to cover all of the interrogatories served in light of the circumstances. Packman v. Chicago
Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001) (“District courts have broad discretion in
discovery matters” (citing Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 231 F.3d 1049, 1056 (7th Cir.
2000))). Given the large number of Defendants, it is reasonable for the Court to increase the
number of interrogatories. Id. Therefore, the Court increases the limit of interrogatories to cover
all of the interrogatories served heretofore in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26b)(2)(A). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection in
this regard in overruled.
Plaintiff also claims that his Verified Complaint already answers the interrogatory. It is
generally not appropriate to respond to an interrogatory by reference to a complaint or verified
complaint. See, e.g., Wagner v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 238 F.R.D. 418, 427
(N.D.W.Va. 2006) (noting that it is not a valid objection to an interrogatory to state that
requested information is already in the requesting party’s control). Additionally, a claim of
duplication is insufficient, unless all documentary material from which the interrogatory answers
may be conveniently obtained has been previously provided. See In re Folding Carton Antitrust

Litig. 83 F.R.D. 260 (N.D. Ill. 1979). Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection that his Verified Complaint
already answers the interrogatory is unfounded and is therefore overruled.
Plaintiff further contends that Defendants’ interrogatories are unduly burdensome.
However, Plaintiff has taken a considerable amount of time and effort to restate his allegations
from Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint in response to both Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories
and in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel. [Dkt. 73-1, 79.] This illustrates
Plaintiff’s familiarity with the interrogatories as well as his full capability to respond. In
addition, objections to interrogatories must be specific and supported by detailed explanation as
to why interrogatories, or a class of interrogatories, are objectionable. U.S. v. 58.16 Acres of
Land, 66 F.R.D. 570 (E.D. Ill. 1975); Fisher v. Baltimore Life Ins. Co., 235 F.R.D. 617, 622
(N.D.W.Va. 2006) (concluding that objections to interrogatories must be stated with specificity,
and mere recitation of familiar litany that interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive,
and irrelevant does not suffice as a specific objection). The Plaintiff here makes no such
qualifying objection. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection on the grounds of undue burden is
overruled as well.
Defendants assert that they require a clearer and more concise explanation from the
Plaintiff as to how each Defendant is associated with each of the Plaintiff’s claims, and the Court
agrees. [Dkt. 73.] The Court also agrees with Defendants’ argument that the interrogatories are
important to assist Defendants to decipher the Plaintiff’s complaint. [Id.] Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Certain of Defendants’
First Set of Interrogatories.
IV.

Conclusion

For the above-mentioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a complete and unequivocal response to interrogatory nos. 3-18 of

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories by no later than July 1, 2013. Plaintiff shall then hand deliver his
response to counsel for Defendants prior to the start of Plaintiff’s deposition on July 2, 2013. Counsel for
Defendants shall be responsible for making arrangements to make a copy of the response for return to Mr.
Rowe.

Dated:

06/21/2013
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

Wade J. Hornbacher
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
David A. Arthur
INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
SERVICE VIA THE PRISIONER ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM ON:
JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE
WABASH VALLEY - CF
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838