Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1472
February 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs served their first set of interrogatories on Defendants last month in this Truth in Lending Act case. Although only 22 numbered interrogatories were served on Homeside, review of the interrogatories reveals that several of those 22 are compound interrogatories with numerous subparts. When Homeside objected to the number of interrogatories, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Interrogatories. Homeside opposes the motion, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient support for their request to exceed the limit of 25 interrogatories set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a).
The decision whether to allow Plaintiffs to exceed Rule 33(a)'s limit is within the sound discretion of the court. "Leave to serve additional interrogatories shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles of Rule 26(b)(2)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Homeside argues that "taking into account the small amount in controversy, the burden of the proposed discovery will outweigh any likely benefit." (Opposition, at 6). They complain that the Plaintiffs' justification, that these are the same interrogatories that Plaintiffs' counsel uses in all predatory lending cases, does not suffice to justify what amounts to 63 interrogatories. (Opposition, at 5). Homeside suggests that a deposition would be the more economical way to address the interrogatories posed.
First, we note that the Plaintiffs do not contest the fact that they have exceeded Rule 33's limitation on the number of interrogatories. Reviewing the interrogatories, it is clear that many of the numbered interrogatories contain, three, four, even five separate questions. Although the Plaintiffs have now sought leave to serve these additional interrogatories, they have not justified their need. Plaintiffs' counsel claims that the information sought is "necessary for trial in order to provide definitive support for the Plaintiffs' claims." The same can be said for any discovery pertaining to a case. Counsel also claims that the interrogatories posed are commonly used by him in predatory lending cases. Here, we agree with Homeside. "Plaintiffs' counsel's cookie-cutter/one-size-fits-all approach to written discovery is neither legitimate nor warranted here." (Opposition, at 5).
As previously mentioned, Homeside suggests that the same discovery could, more economically, be provided by way of a deposition. We agree. However, we caution that Homeside is now armed with the questions that will, in all likelihood, be posed at such a deposition. They shall be required to produce a person who can provide the answers and documents sought in the interrogatories.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26 day of February, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave of Court to Serve Supplemental Interrogatories upon Defendant, Homeside Lending, Inc.," and Homeside's Opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify 25 interrogatories to which they wish response by Homeside. For purposes of identification, each subpart will be considered a separate interrogatory. Thereafter, Homeside shall identify and produce a witness or witnesses for deposition to respond to the remaining interrogatories.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2004, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a settlement conference in the above captioned matter, has been scheduled before the undersigned on MONDAY. MARCH 8M 2004. at 10:00 a.m.. in Room 3041, United States Courthouse, 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.
The senior attorney in charge of the matter for each of the parties,AND THE PARTIES THEMSELVES, or if a corporation, an official of the corporation with settlement authority are REQUIRED to attend the conference IN PERSON. The parties and counsel must be prepared to discuss settlement or other disposition of the matter.
Counsel are directed to fax confidential position papers not longer than 2 pages directly to Chambers (fax. no. 215-580-2163) not later than 2 business days prior to the date of the conference. The position paper should address the party's settlement position, as well as any other issue that counsel believes will be of assistance to the Court in helping the parties resolve this matter. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SHARED WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL NOR FILED OF RECORD. THIS IS FOR JUDGE HART'S EYES ONLY .