Bridges et al v. Mustafa Kan M/V et al
Filing
56
ORDER that plaintiff's 50 Motion for Leave of Court to Propound Interrogatories in Excess of Twenty Five is GRANTED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/26/15. (plh) Modified doc type on 1/26/2015 (plh).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TONYA BRIDGES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-1755
MUSTAFA KAN M/V, ET AL.
SECTION "K" (3)
ORDER
On January 22, 2015, at the settlement conference in the above-captioned lawsuit, Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Propound Written Interrogatories in Excess of Twenty Five [Doc. #50] came
on for oral hearing before the undersigned. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion
in part.
Plaintiffs seek leave to propound their Second Set of Interrogatories on defendants. They
argue that the interrogatories address issues raised by defendants’ responses to their requests for
admission. Plaintiffs maintain that the extra interrogatories are necessary given the logistical issues
presented by defendants’ location outside of the United States.
Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ request to propound an additional 49 interrogatories and 50
requests for production. They note that plaintiffs have already propounded 25 interrogatories, 67
requests for production, and 49 requests for admission. They maintain that much of the requested
discovery is repetitive of what plaintiffs already sent. Defendants contend that no one will ever
know what happened here as there were no witnesses to the decedent's accident. Even if they could
determine what happened, they maintain that it will not be discovered by propounding discovery as
to whether defendants agree with the OSHA investigator, whether a corrective action report was
prepared, and which IMO regulations apply to the vessel. Defendants maintain that settlement is
proper here.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve no more than twenty
five (25) written interrogatories, including discrete subparts, upon another party. Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(a)(1). The purpose of the rule is not to prevent discovery, but to prevent the excessive use of a
particular discovery device. Estate of Manship v. United States, 232 F.R.D. 552, 554 n.1 (M.D. La.
2005).
A review of the 49 interrogatories reveals that each one is based on the denial or admission
of each of the 49 requests for admission. In short, plaintiffs seek the underlying factual support for
each admission or denial. While the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, many of them also appear to be similar and repetitive and oppressive and
burdensome, especially given defendants' foreign location and the fact that the vessel has not yet
returned to this country. Nonetheless, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to propound
additional interrogatories, yet not as many as they seek to propound. The Court will allow plaintiffs
to propound an additional 20 interrogatories.
There is nothing that the Court can do with regard to the requests for production as there is
no limit on the amount of requests for production that a party may propound. If defendants want to
file a motion to quash, they may do so. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Propound Written Interrogatories in
Excess of Twenty Five [Doc. #50] is GRANTED IN PART as outlined above.
2
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of January, 2015.
DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?