MEINEKE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al

Filing 38

ENTRY - Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Strike is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/3/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANTHONY R. MEINEKE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN FINNAN Former Superintendent,
JACK BINION Facility Head/Designee,
CHARLES
A.
PENFOLD
Final
Reviewing Authority, sued in their
individual and official capacities,
CHARLES FOX Disciplinary Hearing
Board Chairman, BRUCE
LEMMON
sued in his official capacity, KEITH
BUTTS Superintendent,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:11-cv-01624-TWP-DKL

Order Denying Motion to Strike Amended Answer
The motion to strike the amended answer filed by the State defendants on
December 15, 2012, has been considered. Although the thrust of the motion to strike
is legitimate, the motion to strike [Dkt. 36] is denied. The plaintiff may explore the
factual bases for the affirmative defenses through what is known as “contention
interrogatories.”
“[C]ontention interrogatories” refers to several types of questions. They
may ask another party to indicate what it contends, to state all the
facts on which it bases its contentions, to state all the evidence on
which it bases its contentions, or to explain how the law applies to the
facts. They are distinct from interrogatories that request identification
of witnesses or documents that bear on the allegations.
McCarthy v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 448, 450 (D.Conn. 1996) (citing
In re Convergent Technologies Securities Lit., 108 F.R.D. 328, 332–333 (N.D.Ca.

1985)); see also R. Braun Medical, Inc. V. Abbott Laboratories, 155 F.R.D. 525, 527
(E.D.Pa. 1994) (defining contention discovery as, inter alia, that which asks a party
to “state all the facts upon which it bases a contention”); Leotta v. Firestone Tire and
Rubber, 1989 WL 51797, at *2–3 (E.D.Pa. May 12, 1989)(explaining “contention
interrogatories” embrace questions asking whether a party makes some specified
contention, or asking a party to state all the facts or evidence on which it bases
some specified contention).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/03/2013
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Anthony R. Meineke
147748
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Electronically Registered Counsel

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana