Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-00769.
September 27, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
In a motion seeking to compel discovery responses, defendant Travelers Life and Annuity Co. ("Travelers") asked that I sanction Plaintiffs for their "obstructionist behavior." On August 20, 2004, I issued an Order and Opinion awarding counsel for Travelers the portion of her fees which were expended for moving to compel responses to certain discovery requests — Interrogatories 8, 9 and 12, and Document Requests 29 and 46.
Plaintiffs have now asked me to reconsider the award of sanctions in my August 20, 2004, Order. For the reasons set forth below, however, I will deny their motion.
II. Legal Principles
The standards controlling a motion for reconsideration are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(3) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); Kostar v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc., Civ. A. No. 96-7130, 1998 WL 848116 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 1998);
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise new arguments that could have been made in support of the original motion. Balogun v. Alden Park Management Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-0612, 1998 WL 962956 at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 1998); Vaidya v. Xerox Corporation, Civ. A. No. 97-547, 1997 WL 732464 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1997).
Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Kostar, supra; Vaidya, supra.
III. The Discovery Responses at Issue Interrogatory No. 8 : Describe in detail any basis for your contention that you have been subjected to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, causing you to suffer great humiliation, mental pain, mental suffering, anguish or damage to your reputation or character. For each instance in which you were publicly hated, contempted, ridiculed, suffered great humiliation, mental pain, mental suffering, anguish, or damage to your reputation or character, identify all individuals who thought less of you; identify any individual or other legal entity from whom you learned about the instance; describe in detail any counseling, advice, or medical treatment that you sought as a direct or indirect result of such instance; identify any individual from whom you sought counseling, advice, or medical treatment; and identify any documents that refer or relate to such instance. Interrogatory No. 9 : Describe in detail each trade secret that you contend was misappropriated by any one or more Defendants. For each such trade secret, state whether each such trade secret encompasses more, the same as, or less than the claims asserted in U.S. Patent application publication US 2002/0198802 A1; describe in detail any differences between each trade secret and that publication; Identify every person to whom you revealed that trade secret; and Identify any Documents that refer or relate to each alleged trade secret and/or misappropriation. Interrogatory No. 12 : Describe in detail all pecuniary damages you are claiming, including and itemizing separately for each instance of damage the nature and source of such damages, the dollar amount of such damages, each formula and step used in calculating such damages, the data used in calculating such damages, the source(s) of information you used to calculate such damages, an allocation of such damages between the different counts of the Complaint, an allocation of those damages between each Defendant, and a detailed explanation of the causal connection between the acts you allege the Defendants committed and the damages you allege you suffered. Identify any Documents that refer to such damages. Plaintiffs' Responses /Relevant Portion of August 20, 2004, Decision: Although Plaintiffs provided answers to each of these interrogatories, they did not identify a single individual or entity involved in the facts underlying this case. They referred to individuals who were discouraged from trading with them only as "certain agents and advisers." They did not include a claim of confidentiality in their response to any of these interrogatories.
Document Request No. 29 : [Produce] all contacts and Communications between you, on the one hand, and large carriers, on the other hand, that refer or relate to their interest in future marketing opportunities. Plaintiff's Response : Plaintiffs incorporate the general objections above. Plaintiffs also object to this request as vague since Travelers did not define "large carriers." Relevant Portion of August 20, 2004, Decision: Plaintiffs, in their original complaint, claimed to have contacted "over a dozen large carriers" for their interest in future marketing opportunities. Complaint at ¶ 57. Therefore, they could not reasonably object to the term as vague.
Request No. 46 : [Produce] all documents or things that refer or relate to your contention that you are national leaders in the employee welfare benefit and taxation industry. Response : Plaintiffs incorporate the general objections above as if the same were set forth at length herein and further object to this request as vague since Travelers did not define "welfare benefit and taxation industry." Relevant Portion of August 20, 2004, Decision: Here, again, since the Plaintiffs wrote in their complaint, at ¶ 72, that they were "national leaders in the employee welfare benefit and taxation industry" they had no basis for objecting to the term as vague.
IV. Discussion
As to all of these discovery responses, Plaintiffs argue that I overlooked the fact that they were withholding the requested information out of a concern for confidentiality, and that, after a stipulated confidentiality agreement was entered on August 10, 2004, they agreed to provide the requested material. Therefore, their refusal to provide the information was not baseless.
On this subject, I wrote in my August 20, 2004, Opinion: "In their August 20, 2004, letter written after the telephonic conference, Plaintiffs agreed to answer Interrogatories 9 and 12 `to the best of their ability.' However, the fact that they agreed to this after nothing had changed except for the entry of a confidentiality order — here, irrelevant, since there was no claim of confidentiality — simply highlights the fact that they could have answered these interrogatories fully in the first place."
Plaintiffs maintain that this approach was misguided. They point out that every discovery response began with the sentence "Plaintiffs incorporate the general objections above." The General Objections prefacing Plaintiffs' discovery responses include an objection on the grounds of confidentiality, and provide: "Answering Party will provide certain confidential information upon the execution and entry of the Stipulation and Protective Order by the above-captioned Court or such other tribunal lawfully authorized to enter such Order." Exhibits B and C to Affidavit of Virginia Miller. They even provide that "the absence of a reference to a General Objection should not be construed as a waiver of the General Objection."
For the reasons discussed below, however, I cannot accept this argument. Plaintiffs have now come forward with reasons why the material involved had confidential elements, but these arguments cannot be said to have been raised earlier.
First, I cannot accept Plaintiffs' reliance on bald references to unspecified general objections. Travelers points to Porter v. Nationscredit Consumer Discount Company, Civ. A. No. 03-3768, 2004 WL 1753255 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 8, 2004), where the Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer found that a plaintiff's references to her general objections were inadequate, writing:
It is neither the Court's job, nor that of Defense Counsel, to assign objections to each individual discovery request. Although general objections may be included as Plaintiff chooses, she must be specific as to which objection applies to which discovery request instead of using the catch-all "see above objections." As case law and common sense dictate, Plaintiff must provide reasoning and specificity with each objection.2004 WL 1753255 at *1.
As Judge Newcomer has written, responses like "Plaintiffs incorporate the general objections above", without more, leave all the work to others. Plaintiffs set forth twelve general objections before each set of discovery responses. Neither Travelers nor the Court could be expected to guess which one/s applied to a specific response.
Secondly, it is still not clear that Plaintiffs actually intended to assert confidentiality objections to the requests at issue. A number of Plaintiffs' responses to Travelers' interrogatories stated: "Plaintiffs respond that this interrogatory contemplates the divulgence of intellectual property, trade secrets, confidential client lists and matters subject to attorney-client privilege for which no information will be provided until a Confidentiality Agreement has been executed by Defendants." See Responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 10. This language is notably absent from the responses to Interrogatories 8, 9 and 12.
Similarly, nearly all of Plaintiffs' responses to Document Requests state that some of the requested material will be provided "only upon the parties executing a stipulation and agreement of confidentiality to be submitted to the court to be so ordered." Document Requests 1-20, 22-28, 30-45, 50-55, 58-63, 66, 68 and 69. However, as can be read above, Requests 29 and 46 were objected to only as "vague."
Moreover, in Plaintiffs' August 10, 2004, letter, in which they informed the court of discovery issues remaining even after the entry of the Stipulated Confidentiality Order, Plaintiffs continued to object to Interrogatory 8 and Document Requests 29 and 46. Obviously, their objections here were unconnected to confidentiality issues.
In summary, I conclude that I was not mistaken in failing to consider Plaintiffs' general objections as a basis for their refusal to provide this discovery. For this reason, I will not revise my earlier decision.
As a final point, Plaintiffs also complain that I wrongly "took notice of" behavior said by Travelers to be "obstructive" but not specifically discussed in its Motion to Compel. This is not true. On the contrary, I explicitly declined to consider these allegations:
As discussed below, I will not consider an extreme sanction, such as the preclusion of evidence. Nor can I sanction Plaintiffs for the "scores of examples" of obstructionist behavior set forth in a letter attached as Exhibit 32, but not discussed in Traveler's motion."
August 20, 2004, Order and Opinion at 1.
V. Conclusion
Accordingly, I now enter the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' motion for Reconsideration of this Court's August 20, 2004, Order, docketed in this case as Document No. 52, and the response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.