Lin et al v. Chinatown Restaurant Corp. et al

Filing 81

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion to Compel (Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11510-GAO
JIN-MING LIN and CHI-WAI CHAO,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHINATOWN RESTAURANT CORP., JOYCE P.Y. HAYES, and WILLIAM M.
WAINRIGHT,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
June 19, 2012

O’TOOLE, D.J.
The defendant, Chinatown Restaurant Corp., has moved to compel answers to
interrogatories previously requested from the plaintiffs.
“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Rule 26(b) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. at 26(b).
In the present case, the defendant seeks through interrogatories additional information
about the plaintiff’s current and former employment. Much of that information sought is of only
marginal or questionable relevance. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs
were substantially justified in their refusal to provide this information to the defendant. See
Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, L.P., 428 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2005) (“‘[S]ubstantially

justified’ does not mean ‘justified to a high degree,’ but only ‘justified in substance or in the
main—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.’”).
Nevertheless, an important issue in this case will be the trustworthiness of the plaintiffs’
assertions about the work they performed for the defendants. Interrogatories 2 through 6, which
address matters of current and former employment, may reasonably lead to the discovery of
evidence on this issue and are not unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). The
plaintiffs must answer those interrogatories fully and sign their answers.
Interrogatories 15 and 16, on the other hand, seeking information about the plaintiffs’
social security numbers, are neither relevant to the case’s legitimate defenses nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The question here is not close. The
plaintiffs need not answer those interrogatories.
The plaintiffs shall have twenty days from the date of entry of the present order to
provide discovery in accordance with this order. The Court shall not award costs and fees. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
It is SO ORDERED.

/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.____
United States District Court

2