Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al

Filing 198

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs are ordered to provide responsive Answers to these Interrogatories on or before February 9, 2012. The decision of whether to sanction and what sanction is appropriate will be deferred until the Court can assess Plaintiffs' demonstration of good faith after the specific guidance given at the January 9, 2012 conference. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/6/2012) (ft)

·

--------

-

.

f'US:1)C SDhTY

I DOCU~':"r7Nr
,l
ET..... 'Pf"
, (j,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

n(k
"--J

<\

...

<..

<

•

~<.<.

NlCALLY Fl1.1tlD

.<~

...

_

_

DArE 1 :LLED: Z -

•

.!..

c: \.~

1

MARK I. SOKOLOW, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND
ORDER

- against04 Civ. 397 (GBD) (RLE)
PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION, et aI.,
Defendants.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants ("PLO") ask the Court to sanction Plaintiffs for failure to comply with the
Court's December 9, 2011 Order regarding Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories, (Defs.' Letter
to the Court ("Letter from PLO"), Jan. 13,2012 at 1.) At a conference with the Parties on
January 19, 2012, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' Supplemental Answers were non­
responsive. Although the Court will not impose sanctions at this time, Plaintiffs shall submit
appropriate responses on or before February 9, 2012.
II. DISCUSSION
The history of the Interrogatories is unnecessarily extensive. The PLO first served
Interrogatories on Plaintiffs on August 25,2011, and Plaintiffs objected to each Interrogatory.
(Letter from PLO at 1.) At a conference with the Parties on November 17,2011, the Court
detennined that Plaintiffs' blanket objections were unwarranted. The Court issued an Order on
December 9,2011, that Plaintiffs provide responsive Answers to PLO's Interrogatories no later
than December 16,2011. (Doc. No. 171 at 2.) The PLO asserts that this second attempt also
falls short. The Court agrees.

t

First, the Court notes that the PLO's inquiries were fairly straightforward and sought the
identities of individuals that Plaintiffs "know have knowledge or who [Plaintiffs} believe may
have knowledge" of the factual allegations in the Complaint. (Letter from PLO, Ex. 3 at 3-12.)
For example, Interrogatory No.9 asked Plaintiffs to identifY "all persons who you know have
knowledge or who you believe may have knowledge that 'Defendants PLO and PA ...
authorized, ratified and participated in' the January 22, 2002 Shooting, as alleged in Paragraph
76 of the First Amended Complaint." (ld. at 11.) Rather than making a good faith attempt to
provide names to Defendants, Plaintiffs answered as follows: "Plaintiffs; Defendants (including
their past and present officers, employees and agents); the United States (including its past and
present officers, employees and agents); all persons identified in the documents disclosed and/or
produced by Plaintiffs in this action; all persons identified in the documents and/or produced by
Defendants in this action; and all persons identified in the interrogatories propounded by
Plaintiffs in this action and in Defendants' answers in those interrogatories; and all persons
mentioned in the complaint and first amended complaint in this action." (ld. at 11-12.)
Plaintiffs provided similar answers to nearly all the other Interrogatories. These responses
violated the Court's December 9,2011 Order and are sanctionable.
Plaintiffs argue the Interrogatories are over-broad and, accordingly, Plaintiffs "identified
many hundreds of individuals and persons who 'have knowledge' or who 'may have knowledge'
of the specified topics." (Letter from Plaintiffs, January 18,2012 at 3.) Counsel asserted that if a
less expansive answer had been provided, Plaintiffs would have faced sanctions for not properly
answering the Interrogatory. This argument is meritless. If Plaintiffs had actual names, they
were required to indicate them. The overbroad Supplemental Answers provide no meaningful
information to Defendants, and provide no protection for Plaintiff if they failed to disclose actual
2

names of persons known to them who might fall into the broad categories listed. The Court
finds Plaintiffs' Supplemental Answers to the PLO's Interrogatories to be non-responsive and
inadequate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide responsive Answers to these
Interrogatories on or before February 9, 2012. The decision of whether to sanction and what
sanction is appropriate will be deferred until the Court can assess Plaintiffs' demonstration of
good faith after the specific guidance given at the January 9, 2012 conference.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of February 2012
New York, New York

~

The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge

3