Gray et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 171

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 168 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Interrogatories Relating to Damages filed by Plaintiff Jammie Hill, Plaintiff Carl Tucker, Plaintiff Tom Skundrich, Jr., Plaintiff Mike Sanders, Plaintiff Kevin Pou r, Plaintiff Jamie Tenison, Plaintiff John Waweru, Plaintiff Rick Hendricks, Plaintiff Seid Huskic, Plaintiff Michael Jost, Plaintiff Mike Sheffer, Plaintiff James Tichenor, Plaintiff Don Blackmon, Plaintiff Robert Hansen, Plaintiff Reginald Gray, Plaintiff Bob Candella, Plaintiff Bobby Brown, Plaintiff Gary Austin, Plaintiff Luther McLain, Plaintiff Marcus Holmes, Plaintiff Rich Mitchell, Plaintiff Bob Arbutti, Plaintiff Roy Patton, Jr., Plaintiff Bob O'Keefe, Plaintiff Bob Lee Baker motion is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable John A. Ross on 7/16/12. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

REGINALD GRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:06-CV-00422-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Interrogatories Relating to Damages [ECF No. 168]. The motion is fully briefed and ready for
disposition. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiffs seeks to propound nine additional interrogatories on Defendants seeking
information on hourly wage rates, job descriptions and benefits for employees of Federal
Express Freight, Federal Express Ground, and Federal Express Home Delivery in positions
similar to those of Plaintiffs. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that the additional
interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and
that Plaintiffs have failed to show a particularized need for the discovery. (Memorandum of Law
in Opposition, Doc. No. 169, pp. 1-2). Plaintiffs reply that their damages expert based his
analyses on wage rate information from various websites advertising positions with Defendant
and its sister companies, and that their supplemental interrogatories are narrowly tailored to
obtain this information. (Reply, Doc. No. 170, pp. 1-2).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1) provides that leave to serve additional interrogatories may be

granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2). According to the Advisory Committee Notes
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1), the purpose “is not to prevent needed discovery, but to provide judicial
scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery device.” The Court finds
the information sought by Plaintiffs is not overbroad or burdensome and is clearly designed to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Interrogatories Relating to Damages [168] is GRANTED.
Dated this 16th day of July, 2012.

______________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

2