McReynolds v. Schmidli et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL. Signed on 4/23/18 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. (Anderson, Christy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

Michael McReynolds

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
Officer Darrell Schmidli, et. al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-01055-CV-W-HFS

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
By letter dated April 18, submitted on behalf of both sides, informal assistance is sought
regarding pending interrogatories addressed to plaintiff.

Judicial assistance is very rarely

sought on such questions and my familiarity with common discovery practice is rusty, to say the
least. My supposition is that interrogatories in the first case should be treated as having been
filed in the second identical case.

I would, however, tend to be liberal in allowing more

interrogatories than authorized by the local rules, if reasonably needed for preparation.
The specific objections to interrogatories seem directed to defendants’ request which is
essentially for the plaintiff to lay out his whole case, as he can pull it together in advance of
discovery. This is arguably unduly burdensome, since the case will develop during discovery -but it seems rather like the requirements of Rule 26, applicable to both sides. Different district
judges probably have different reactions.

If counsel cannot work this out I request some

citations regarding current practice, focused on this subject. In general, I favor both sides laying
their cards on the table, but this should not be pursued tediously since the case is supposedly
still in an embryonic status.
/s/ Howard F. Sachs
HOWARD F. SACHS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 23, 2018
Kansas City, Missouri