Opinion
Civil No. 09-1053 MCA/RLP.
December 22, 2010
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Defendant Harpeet Singh served contention Interrogatories on Plaintiff Gian Singh Sambhi. Plaintiff answered the Interrogatories (Docket No. 54, Ex. A). Defendant filed the instant motion seeking an order compel more complete answers to Interrogatories 2-14. (Docket No. 54). All Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's motion, stating as to each interrogatory, that discovery was ongoing, and that supplementation of the interrogatories had or would be provided. (Docket No. 57). Plaintiff's provided supplemental answers after briefing on the instant motion was completed. (Docket No. 62). Thereafter, Defendants advised the court and opposing counsel that they considered Plaintiff's answers to Interrogatories 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to be deficient. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to provide answers to specific portions of the interrogatories, provided vague answers, and improperly referred to the unverified Complaint as containing answers to the Interrogatories rather than providing verified answers. Defendants also complain that the answers to Interrogatories 2, 4, 7, 11, and 12 are "indecipherable."
On September 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Verified First Amended Complaint, which sets out exquisite detail the factual allegations Plaintiffs contend they can prove. (Docket No. 67). Defendants have not advised the court as to whether the Verified Amended Complaint provided the verified detail they seek.
I find that Plaintiff Singh has, or purports to have, sufficient information to respond fully to Defendants Interrogatories, and he must provide supplemental answers to Interrogatories 2-14, answering each portion of each interrogatory.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories is GRANTED.
Defendant Singh shall provide supplemental Answers to Interrogatories 2-14 on or before January 14, 2011.