Opinion
Case No. 03 C 50190.
January 30, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' December 14, 2005 Motion to Compel a Response to their October 31, 2005 Interrogatory #3. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On October 31, 2005, Plaintiffs served Defendant Interrogatory #3, which requests that Defendant state its basis for denying any of the assertions set forth in Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission. On or about December 5, 2005, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #3, stating its objections. Relevant to the Motion now before the court, Defendant objected to Interrogatory #3 as exceeding the court's limitation of seventy-five interrogatories.
The court has previously assisted the parties in counting interrogatories in this case. On June 30, 2005, the court issued an Opinion and Order that held Plaintiffs had expended sixty-one of their allotted seventy-five interrogatories. Since then, Plaintiffs have served Defendant with two numbered interrogatories on August 11, 2005, and three numbered interrogatories on October 31, 2005, the third of which is the contested Interrogatory #3.
At a January 19, 2006 Hearing, the court found that Interrogatory #3 actually consisted of twenty-eight separate interrogatories because Defendant denied twenty-eight of Plaintiffs' thirty-six requests for admission. The court invited both parties to supplement their briefs with respect to Interrogatory #3 to determine each party's contention as to when Plaintiffs exceeded the court imposed limit of seventy-five interrogatories.
Defendant contends that the two numbered interrogatories propounded on August 11, 2005, and the two numbered interrogatories propounded on October 31, 2005 (in addition to Interrogatory #3) count as four interrogatories, such that leading up to Interrogatory #3, Plaintiffs had expended sixty-five of their allotted seventy-five interrogatories.
Plaintiffs agree with Defendant's calculation, except that they contend Defendant did not substantively respond to Interrogatory #2 of the October 31, 2005 Interrogatories, so it should not count against their limit of seventy-five, leaving them with eleven interrogatories. Plaintiff also attempts to specify the eleven Requests to Admit that Defendant should state the basis for its denial: Nos. 3, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 36.
The court finds that four interrogatories, in addition to the sixty-one counted in the June 30th Order, precede Plaintiffs' Interrogatory #3. Every interrogatory served and responded to under Rule 33 is counted against the court's numerical limit, even if the response is an objection. Accordingly, Plaintiffs only had ten remaining interrogatories under the court's Order and exceeded their limit with subpart eleven of Interrogatory #3.
The court cannot allow Plaintiff to effectively withdraw interrogatories by specifying which of the sub-parts it would like answered after Defendant has responded to the Interrogatories by objecting. As such, Defendant is ordered to respond to Interrogatory #3, sub-parts 1-10, by February 20, 2006.
In conclusion, Plaintiffs' December 14, 2005 Motion to Compel a Response to their October 31, 2005 Interrogatory #3 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is ordered to respond to Interrogatory #3, sub-parts 1-10, by February 20, 2006.