Opinion
Case No. CV98-316-E-BLW
June 5, 2002
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Currently before the Court for its consideration is Defendants' Motion to Compel Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company and EGG Idaho, Inc. to Respond to Defendants' First Sets of Interrogatories (Dkt #165) Defendants filed the present motion on February 27, 2002. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants oppose the motion and Defendants filed a reply in response to tile opposition brief. Thus, the motion is flow ripe. The Court observes that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without a hearing.
I. Background.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 34, Defendants Lockheed Martin Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corporation (collectively "Lockheed Martin") served interrogatories on Plaintiff Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company ("LMITCO") or February 27, 2001, and on third-party defendant EGG Idaho, Inc, ("EGG") on March 1, 2001. The interrogatories requested the names of all individuals who have information relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaint and a summary of such information
Specifically, the interrogatories directed to LMITCO read as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons who are likely to have personal knowledge, and/or discoverable information relevant to, any fact alleged in the complaint, and state the subject matter of the personal knowledge and/or discoverable information possessed by each such person.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all persons who are likely to have personal knowledge, and/or discoverable information relevant to, any fact alleged in the Answer and Counterclaim, and state the subject matter of the personal knowledge and/or discoverable information possessed by each such person.
The interrogatories directed to EGG state:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons who are likely to have personal knowledge of and/or discoverable information concerning the Pit 9 Project, and state the subject matter of the personal knowledge and/or discoverable information possessed by each such person.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all persons who are likely to have personal knowledge, and/or discoverable information relevant to any fact alleged in the Third-Party Complaint, and state the subject matter of the personal knowledge and/or discoverable information possessed by each such person.
LMITCO and EGG objected to the interrogatories on the basis that the interrogatories are "beyond the proper scope of discovery and that responding to the same would be "unduly burdensome."
On May 14, 2001, Lockheed Martin sent a letter to LMITCO and EGG, stating in part that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(b)(1), Lockheed Martin is entitled to receive all information relevant to the claims asserted in the Complaint. See Letter from I Anderson to B. Schestopol, a copy of which is attached as Exh. B to Lockheed Martin's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel. The letter further stated that Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26 obliged LMITCO and EGG to provide the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, and that LMITCO and EGG had already identified many individuals who had "either charged time to the Pit 9 budget number and/or received Pit 9 specific OCI training." Id.
On May 30, 2001, LMITCO and EGG sent a letter to Lockheed Martin reiterating their objections to Lockheed Martin's interrogatories as overbroad and unduly burdensome, but offering to produce a list of names of the 1,100 employees previously referred to and a current IN EEL employee directory. See copy of Letter attached as Exh. G to Lockheed Martin's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel. LMITCO and EGG refused, however, to disclose the subject matter of the knowledge or information possessed by these individuals, arguing that such a task is "unreasonably expensive, time consuming, overly burdensome, and beyond the proper scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26." Id.
On June 20, 2001, Lockheed Martin responded to LMITCO's and EGG's objections. See copy of Letter attached as Exh. H to Lockheed Martin's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel. In that correspondence, Lockheed Martin stated that much of the information requested would be "a required disclosure under the new Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(1). Lockheed Martin further informed LMITCO and EGG that the fact that some research may be involved was not a proper objection to Lockheed Martin's interrogatories. Additionally, Lockheed Martin agreed to limit the scope of its interrogatories to those individuals who logged more than fifty (50) hours to the Pit 9 project in any fiscal year, as well as a summary of the relevant knowledge possessed by these individuals. On August 10, 2001, Lockheed Martin repeated its request for a response to its interrogatories. See copy of Letter attached as Ext. I to Lockheed Martin's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel.
II. Defendants' Motion to Compel.
Lockheed Martin, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 37(a)(2)(A), moves this Court for the entry of an Order compelling LMITCO and EGG to provide a list of the names of the individuals who have information relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaint in this action, as well as information regarding the personal knowledge and/or discoverable information possessed by such individuals. Lockheed Martin also requests an award of its fees and costs in bringing the present motion.
In response, LMITCO and EGG submit that the interrogatories as to which Lockheed Martin by its present motion seeks to compel further answers are unreasonably overbroad and burdensome. LMITCO and EGG point out that LMITCO's ten-page complaint alleges facts in 28 separate paragraphs covering events occurring in 1991 through 1998, and seeks damages exceeding $54 million. Additionally, Lockheed Martin has answered and counterclaimed, alleging its improper termination for which it seeks hundreds of millions in damages. Lockheed Martin's counterclaim is 84 pages in length and contains 224 paragraphs.
Lockheed Martin has also sought judgment against third-party defendant EGG for any amount determined to be due from Lockheed Martin to LMITCO.
Given the scope of Lockheed Martin's present motion, LMITCO and EGG further submit that the most appropriate response to Lockheed Martin's interrogatories is they one they have already supplied: Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 33(d), Lockheed Martin should glean the information requested by the subject interrogatories from the contract and project records that have been and continue to be produced to Lockheed Martin by LMITCO and EGG.
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 33(d) provides that when an answer to an interrogatory "may be derived or ascertained from business records of the [served] party" and "the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served," it is a "sufficient answer" thereto to direct the party to the business records produced.
The Court finds that the information requested by Lockheed Martin is within the proper scope of discovery under the Federal Rules and is not unduly burdensome. Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defenses of any party, including . .. the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." In its first sets of interrogatories, Lockheed Martin seeks nothing more than the information required to address the parties' claims and defenses and identify witnesses for depositions and ongoing discovery. Such information is routinely requested and provided by parties in civil contract disputes.
As to LMITCO's contention that Lockheed Martin should glean the information requested by the subject interrogatories from the contract and project records that have been and continue to be produced to Lockheed Martin, the Court finds that the burden on LMITCO and EGG to provide such information is much less than the burden on Lockheed Martin. Accordingly, the Court will order LMITCO and EGG to respond to Lockheed Martin's First Set of Interrogatories.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company and EGG Idaho, Inc. to Respond to Defendants' First Sets of Interrogatories (Dkt #165) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Defendants' request for an Order compelling LMITCO and EGG to respond to Lockheed Martin's First Set of Interrogatories to LMITCO is GRANTED, LMITCO shall respond to Lockheed Martin's First Set of Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
(2) Defendants' request for an Order compelling EGG to respond to Lockheed Martin's First Set of Interrogatories to Third Party Defendant EGG is GRANTED. EGG shall respond to Lockheed Martin's First Set of Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
(3) Defendants' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs in bringing the Motion to Compel is DENIED.