Chubb v. Con-Way Freight, Inc.

Full title: CEDRIC CHUBB, Plaintiff, v. CON-WAY FREIGHT, INC., a Delaware Corporation…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 18, 2012

Case No. 12-cv-12612 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 12-cv-12612

10-18-2012

CEDRIC CHUBB, Plaintiff, v. CON-WAY FREIGHT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, CON-WAY ENTERPRISE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and CON-WAY, INC. (a/k/a DELAWARE CON-WAY INC.), a Delaware Corporation, Jointly & Severally, Defendants.

MARK A. RANDON

Hon.: Sean F. Cox

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER

AND ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. NO. 10)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's Answer and enter a default judgment or, alternatively, a protective order (Dkt. No. 10). The motion turns on a dispute over what constitutes 25 interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Defendant's refusal to respond to 11 interrogatories, which included an additional 79 subparts and sub-subparts. Plaintiff requests that Defendant be sanctioned for failing to respond to the interrogatories. Defendant argues that is was proper to refuse to answer the interrogatories as they exceeded the limit of 25. The issue presented has been fully briefed (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11); oral argument was heard on October 16, 2012.

For the reasons stated on the record, having carefully reviewed the interrogatories at issue and giving all close calls to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff propounded a minimum of 25 - not 11- interrogatories to Defendant when "all discrete subparts" are counted. Fed. R. Civ. P 33(a)(1). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall fully respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories - including any objections - on or before November 6, 2012; Plaintiff has exhausted his 25-interrogatory limit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions or a protective order is DENIED, because Defendant was reasonable in making a challenge to the number of interrogatories.

____________________

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date, October 18, 2012, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

Melody R. Miles

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

(313) 234-5542