FRECHETTE v. GAUDETTE et al

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (jwr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

SCOTT FRECHETTE,
Plaintiff
v.
NORMAN GAUDETTE, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00172-LEW

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
At the request of defendant Roger Beaupre, I held a teleconference in this section 1983
civil rights action on January 29, 2019, to resolve disputes over the adequacy of plaintiff Scott
Frechette’s responses to Defendant Beaupre’s contention interrogatories and related document
requests. See ECF No. 64 at [1]; ECF No. 71. I determined that I required further information and
ordered simultaneous letter-briefs to be filed on the docket by the parties by February 8, 2019,
with simultaneous letter-brief responses to be filed by February 14, 2019. ECF No. 71. The City
of Biddeford, noting that it had served virtually identical discovery requests on the plaintiff and
received essentially identical responses, joined in Defendant Beaupre’s letter brief. See ECF No.
73.
For the reasons that follow, treating Defendant Beaupre’s request as a motion to compel,
I grant the motion in part, to the extent that I direct the plaintiff to supplement his answer to both
defendants’ Interrogatory No. 3 no later than April 15, 2019, and otherwise deny it.
I. Background
This section 1983 civil rights action has been ongoing for nearly two years. The parties
have conducted extensive discovery practice, including taking more than 75 depositions in this
action and related cases. See Plaintiff’s Letter Brief dated Feb. 8, 2019 (“Ptf’s Letter Br.”) (ECF
1

No. 72) at 1. More than a year ago, Defendant Beaupre served the plaintiff with contention
interrogatories. See Defendant Beaupre’s Letter Brief dated Feb. 7, 2019 (“Def’s Letter Br.”)
(ECF No. 70) at 2. The plaintiff argued that it was too early in the discovery process to respond
and requested an extension, which Defendant Beaupre provided. See id. The plaintiff eventually
served responses to the contention interrogatories in December 2018 and to related contentionstyled document requests in November 2018. See Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Roger
Beaupre’s First Set of Interrogatories (“Ptf’s Interrog. Resp.”) (ECF No. 70-1), attached to Def’s
Letter Br., at 15; Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Roger Beaupre’s First Request for Production
of Documents (“Ptf’s RFP Resp.”) (ECF No. 70-2), attached to Def’s Letter Br., at 9.
Defendant Beaupre takes issue with the plaintiff’s answers to 26 of his 29 interrogatories,
all but those numbered 1, 2, and 20, see Interrogatories (“Interrog. Chart”) (ECF No. 70-3),
attached to Def’s Letter Br, and the plaintiff’s responses to 26 of his 31 requests for production of
documents, all but those numbered 1 through 5, see Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP
Chart”) (ECF No. 70-3), attached to Def’s Letter Br.
The plaintiff responded to the interrogatories at issue by (i) writing several narrative
accounts of the evidence, see Ptf’s Interrog. Resp. Nos. 3-4, 13, 16, 19, (ii) providing caveats that
his answers did not contain all of the requested information, which I construe as objections as to
scope and proportionality, see id. Nos. 4-5, 14,1 and (iii) referencing other answers, see id. Nos. 312, 15, 17-18, 21-29.
The plaintiff served similar responses to the requests for production of documents at issue,
(i) directing Defendant Beaupre to relevant sources (typically deposition transcripts), see Ptf’s RFP

The plaintiff noted, for example, that he “cannot possibly summarize every single fact that supports this claim.” Ptf’s
Interrog. Resp. Nos. 4-5. I include the plaintiff’s answer to Interrogatory No. 14 in this category because he included
the caveat, “[a]mong other things[.]” Ptf’s Interrog. Resp. No. 14.
1

2

Resp. Nos. 6-8, 17-20, (ii) including caveats like those found in his interrogatory responses and
making blanket references to discovery materials “already in [the] possession of Defendant,”
which I construe as objections as to scope and proportionality, id. Nos. 7-8, and (iii) referencing
other responses, usually his responses to RFP Nos. 7 and 8, see id. Nos. 8-16, 21-31.
Defendant Beaupre now argues that the plaintiff’s responses to his contention
interrogatories and document requests are deficient. See generally Def’s Letter Br.; Defendant
Beaupre’s Letter Response dated Feb. 12, 2019 (“Def’s Letter Resp.”) (ECF No. 74). Some,
according to Defendant Beaupre, are “[i]nadequately answered”; others contain an “overbroad
loophole”; still others allegedly suffer both problems. See Interrog. Chart; RFP Chart. To
illustrate, Defendant Beaupre methodically analyzes the plaintiff’s answers to Interrog. Nos. 3 and
4 and responses to RFP Nos. 7 and 8, all of which he deems inadequate. See Def’s Letter Br. at 37. He also objects to the plaintiff’s caveats regarding completeness, arguing that answers and
responses containing such a “loophole” are not “helpful or adequate[.]” Id. at 3, 7. Finally, he
argues that the plaintiff’s references to other responses merely incorporate the inadequacies of
those underlying responses. See id. at 4, 7.
The plaintiff rejoins that, because discovery in this case comprises a set universe of
documents and depositions known to both sides, his responses are adequate, and requiring further
explication would be “unfair, unreasonable, and plainly disproportionate.” Plaintiff’s Letter
Response dated Feb. 14, 2019 (“Ptf’s Letter Resp.”) (ECF No. 75) at 1. The plaintiff relies on the
principles of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, my ruling in Gemini Ins. Co. v. Branch River
Plastics, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-343-NT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75675 (D. Me. Jun. 9, 2016), and
caselaw from other jurisdictions in arguing that Defendant Beaupre’s motion should be denied.
See generally Ptf’s Letter Br.

3

II. Discussion
Rule 26(b)(1) outlines the general scope of discovery: “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As outlined below, I find that most of
Defendant Beaupre’s interrogatories and document requests are overbroad, not proportional to the
needs of this case, and otherwise answered adequately.
As to Interrog. No. 3, however, I grant Defendant Beaupre’s motion. The plaintiff’s
narrative is unclear on the issue of what admissions he believes Defendant Beaupre has made. The
plaintiff states that Defendant Beaupre has “testified about those events, in whole or in part[,]” but
does not clarify which events he believes Defendant Beaupre to have testified about. The plaintiff
could be referencing the testimony of Robert Devou or Robert Poisson or any other portion of his
narrative responding to Interrog. No. 4, which he incorporates by reference to his answers to
Interrog. Nos. 5 and 6 (which, in turn, incorporate by reference his answer to Interrog. No. 4).
Consequently, I direct the plaintiff to supplement his answer to Interrog. No. 3 no later than April
15, 2019.
As to the remaining interrogatories in dispute and all of the disputed requests for
production, I sustain the plaintiff’s objections and, accordingly, deny Defendant Beaupre’s
motion.2
Normally in a case with voluminous discovery materials, the court is concerned that one
party is attempting to swamp the other party, forcing the opponent to find a “needle in a haystack.”
In such a scenario, contention interrogatories can serve the useful purpose of assisting the court

As to RFP Nos. 30 and 31, I agree with the plaintiff, see Ptf’s Letter Br. at 5, that they do not meet the particularity
requirement of Rule 34(b)(1)(A) because they seek all documents on which the plaintiff relies with respect to
Defendant Beaupre as to entire counts of the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A) (requests for production of
documents “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected”).
2

4

(and parties) “in narrowing and sharpening the issues[.]” Def’s Letter Br. at 3 (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33 advisory committee’s note to 1970 amendment). But that is not the case here.
The plaintiff asserts, and Defendant Beaupre does not contest, that the majority of the more
than 75 depositions taken in this and related cases were noticed by the defendants and conducted
by the defendants’ counsel. See Ptf’s Letter Br. at 1; Def’s Letter Resp. at 1. Now, the defendants
want the plaintiff to identify for them what the plaintiff thinks is important. As I observed in
Gemini, this is improper. Gemini, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75675, at *8 (“Where the requesting
party already has all relevant, non-privileged evidence, its demand that the opposing party disclose
its attorney’s selection and compilation of certain documents is often a thinly-veiled effort to
ascertain how counsel intends to marshal[] the facts, documents and testimony in his possession,
and to discover the inferences that counsel believes properly can be drawn from the evidence it
has accumulated.”) (quoting Kodak Graphic Commc’ns Can. Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co., No. 08-CV-6553T, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15752, 2012 WL 413994, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.
8, 2012)).3
Moreover, nearly all of Defendant Beaupre’s contested interrogatories, and all of his
document requests, seek “all facts,” “all documents,” or some similar formulation. See generally
Ptf’s Interrog. Resp.; Ptf’s RFP Resp. As I outlined in Gemini, such a formulation is overbroad.
Gemini 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75675, at *4-5 (quoting Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 674
(D. Kan. 2006), for the proposition that “‘contention interrogatories’ are overly broad and unduly
burdensome on their face if they seek ‘all facts’ supporting a claim or defense, such that the
answering party is required to provide a narrative account of its case[,]” and Rowland v. Paris Las

Defendant Beaupre seeks to distinguish Gemini on the grounds that it involved discovery that was “narrow” and
“closed[.]” Def’s Letter Br. at 2-3 (internal quotation marks omitted). While Defendant Beaupre’s characterization
of Gemini is accurate, the underlying principle of the ruling, along with the authority I cited in it, is that the facts of
the case were known to both parties. See Gemini, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75675, at *7-8.
3

5

Vegas, No. 13CV2630-GPC (DHB), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105513, 2015 WL 4742502, at *2
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015), for the proposition that contention interrogatories “should not require a
party to provide the equivalent of a narrative account of its case, including every evidentiary fact,
details of testimony supporting witnesses, and the contents of supporting documents”). In the
circumstances of this case, in which the parties jointly have developed voluminous discovery,
Defendant Beaupre’s interrogatories and document requests are also not proportional to the needs
of this case.4
Finally, in the circumstances, the plaintiff’s answers provide an adequate response to the
central questions underlying all of Defendant Beaupre’s interrogatories and document requests,
despite those questions’ overbreadth and lack of proportionality. While I agree with Defendant
Beaupre that the plaintiff’s answer to Interrog. No. 3 is inadequate (if only because it is
ambiguous), it does not follow that his other answers, which incorporate his answer to Interrog.
No. 3, are also inadequate. As Defendant Beaupre admits, his contention interrogatories “all get
at the same ultimate question about what Beaupre knew and when he knew it,” Def’s Letter Br. at
6, as do his related document requests, see Ptf’s RFP Resp. Nos. 6-31. As a consequence, the
plaintiff’s repeated references to his narrative answering Defendant Beaupre’s “ultimate question”
are adequate.

Defendant Beaupre also argues that the plaintiff’s answers to his interrogatories are inadequate because “[g]eneral
references to the deposition transcripts are certainly not enough.” Def’s Letter Resp. at 2 (citing Hypertherm, Inc. v.
Am. Torch Tip Co., Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD, 2008 WL 5423833, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2008)). While Hypertherm
did involve a party’s citation to a voluminous record in response to interrogatories, the responding party’s references
to the record in Hypertherm are much less specific than those of the plaintiff here. In Hypertherm, the responding
party referred to its “previous production in its entirety[.]” Hypertherm 2008 WL 5423833 at *3 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The plaintiff here did nothing of the sort, but instead directed Defendant Beaupre to specific
depositions.
4

6

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Beaupre’s motion to compel, in which Defendant
City of Biddeford joins, is GRANTED in part, to the extent the plaintiff is directed to supplement
his answer to both defendants’ Interrogatory No. 3 no later than April 15, 2019, and otherwise
DENIED.

NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an
objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the
district court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated this 5th day of April, 2019.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge

7