Copeland v. Lawton City of et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 42 Defendant City of Lawton's motion to compel (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Patrick R Wyrick on 8/29/2019. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
1) LEBRON COPELAND,
an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

1) THE CITY OF LAWTON OKLAHOMA,
a municipal corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIV-18-558-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Defendant City of Lawton seeks an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to
supplement interrogatory responses that Defendant thinks are deficient (Dkt. 42). Plaintiff
asserts he has fully complied with his response obligations and requests attorney’s fees for
defending Defendant’s motion to compel (Dkt 49). For the reasons set for the below, the
motion is granted.
Compliance With Rule 33
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s entire motion to compel is rendered moot because
Defendant exceeded the number of interrogatories permitted without leave of court by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33.12 Although Defendant’s interrogatories are not numbered past the limit of

1

Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 4.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1):

1

twenty-five,

Plaintiff

argues

that

Defendant’s

“compound,

multiple

sub-part

interrogatories, under single heading numbers,” substantively exceed the number of
interrogatories permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.3 For example, Plaintiff contends that
Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 3 should be counted as three separate interrogatories
because it asks for the (1) full name, (2) address, and (3) anticipated testimony of all
witnesses Plaintiff anticipates calling to testify at trial.4
Neither the federal rules nor the advisory committee notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33
delineate when an interrogatory crosses the line from a single interrogatory to one with
multiple discrete subparts. Many courts look to whether an interrogatory with subparts is
directed at eliciting a common theme, and if so, treat it as a single question for purposes of
counting interrogatories.5 Here, although Defendant’s interrogatories contain subparts, the
Court finds that each is directed at eliciting a common theme and therefore Defendant’s
interrogatories comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33’s number limit.67

Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may
serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including
all discrete subparts.
3

Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 4.

4

Id. at 5.

5

See, e.g., Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, 277 F.R.D. 642, 646 (D. Kan. 2011).

6

The Court notes that it does not have a complete copy of the interrogatories served upon
Plaintiff, so its conclusion is based on those interrogatories highlighted by the parties in
the filings.
7

For example, Interrogatory No. 3 is directed at eliciting the common theme of witness
information.
2

Interrogatory Nos. 13-19
Defendant requests Plaintiff to identify the facts upon which he relies to support his
allegations in Interrogatory Nos. 13-19.8 Instead of stating the requested facts, Plaintiff
answered those interrogatories by referencing paragraph numbers from the Complaint.9
Defendant argues that interrogatory answers must stand on their own, and cannot merely
reference other documents as Plaintiff does here.10 Plaintiff argues that these
interrogatories improperly “call for legal conclusions,” but that in any event, he identified
the facts to answer Interrogatory Nos. 13-19 in Interrogatory Nos. 1-12, so “no further
response is necessary.”11
Plaintiff’s references to the Complaint, as well as Interrogatory Nos. 1-12, to answer
Interrogatory Nos. 13-19, are improper. “[A]nswers to interrogatories should be complete
in and of themselves, and should not refer to pleadings, depositions, or other documents.”12
The Court also disagrees with Plaintiff that these interrogatories call for legal conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 13-19.
Interrogatory No. 9
Defendant asks Plaintiff to identify the amount of medical bills incurred and paid in
connection with the current action, along with other related information, in Interrogatory

88

9

Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 42) at 4.
Id.

10

Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 42) at 4.

11

Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 11.

12

Dipietro v. Jefferson Bank, 144 F.R.D. 279, 282 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
3

No. 9.13 Plaintiff does not identify the amount of any bills in response, and instead directs
Defendant to various lists of medical providers, insurers, and businesses where Plaintiff
filled prescriptions, as well as his responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-4.14 Plaintiff contends
that the information requested by this interrogatory is “equally as available to defendant by
subpoena or request from the third parties identified herein in response to ancillary
Interrogatories.”15 Plaintiff offers no additional information in his later supplement, stating
that the referenced documents in his original interrogatory answer “speak [for]
themselves.”16
But Plaintiff’s burden is to answer interrogatories in a “responsive, full, complete
and unevasive” manner.17 Plaintiff focuses on his contention that the requested information
is equally as available to Defendant in other documents, but this is an interrogatory, not a
request for production. In answering an interrogatory, a “party cannot limit his answers to
matters within his own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or
under his control.”18 The amount of Plaintiff’s own medical bills, and how those medical
bills were paid, is information that is immediately available to him.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that he would have to obtain a “burdensome
amount” of documents to answer Interrogatory No. 9 is unfounded. Nothing about this
13

Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 42) at 5.

14

Id.; Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 8.

15

Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 8.

16

Pl.’s Supp. Interrog. Resp. To Def. City (Dkt. 42-2) at 4.

17

Miller v. Doctor’s Gen. Hosp., 76 F.R.D. 136, 140 (W.D. Okla. 1977).

18

Id.
4

request is unduly burdensome. Indeed, Plaintiff already bears the burden to provide
Defendant with “a computation of each category of damages claimed by [Plaintiff]--who
must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or
other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each
computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries
suffered.”19 Thus, Plaintiff is already required to make available the evidentiary material
on which his damages calculations are based, and in this action where Defendant allegedly
caused physical injury to Plaintiff, that evidentiary material necessarily includes
documents like medical bills. It follows that Defendant’s interrogatory request for the same
information contained in the evidentiary material on which his damages calculations are
based—like the amount of medical bills—cannot be burdensome to Plaintiff. The Court
therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to fully comply with Interrogatory No. 9.
Verification
Defendant also takes issue with Plaintiff’s failure to properly provide an
interrogatory verification.2021 Plaintiff asserts he has fixed this problem,22 but nevertheless

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

20

Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 42) at 5.

According to Defendant, “Plaintiff’s original verification included with his interrogatory
responses states that the contents of his Petition are true and correct. Nowhere does Plaintiff
aver to the content of his interrogatories, rendering them essentially useless during a
deposition or trial.” Id. (emphasis original).
21

22

See Pl.’s Resp. In Opp. To Def. City Of Lawton’s Mot. To Compel (Dkt. 49) at 3.
5

the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s interrogatory verification be corrected, if it has not
already.
Accordingly, Defendant City of Lawton’s motion to compel (Dkt. 42) is
GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE why he should not be required to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred
in making this motion, including attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2019.

6