Ringelberg v. Vanguard Integrity Professionals -Nevada, Inc. et al

RESPONSE to 126 Motion to Compel

D. Nev.April 10, 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Daniel Norr, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6438 Law Office of Daniel Norr, LLC 170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 300 Henderson, NV 89012 (702) 990-3237 dan@norrlaw.com Richard A. Mescon, Esq. New York Bar No. 1434968 (admitted pro hac vice) Leichtman Law PLLC 315 Madison Avenue, Suite 3011 New York, New York 10017 (212) 419-5210 rmescon@leichtmanlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Ringelberg UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA STEVEN RINGELBERG, Plaintiff, v. VANGUARD INTEGRITY PROFESSIONALS – NEVADA, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and VANGUARD INTEGRITY PROFESSIONALS, INC., a Nevada Corporation. Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES. Plaintiff Steven Ringelberg (“Ringelberg”) submits this memorandum in opposition to Vanguard Integrity Professionals-Nevada, Inc.’s and Vanguard Integrity Professionals, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Additional Answers to Interrogatories [ECF 126]. The Motion is made with complete disregard for the requirements of the Scheduling Order in this Case [ECF 48, Paragraph VII] and the Local Rules of this Court [LR 26-7(b)]; Plaintiff in fact has answered more than 36 separate interrogatories submitted by Defendants, substantially more than the 25 permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and many of the interrogatories that have not been answered are unduly burdensome and are more appropriate to be addressed during the deposition of Plaintiff, which is Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 scheduled for April 25, 2018. For these reasons, the Motion to Compel should be denied. RELEVANT FACTS On August 24, 2017, this Court entered its Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (“DPSO”) [ECF 48]. On November 7, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion for an Extension of Discovery Deadlines [ECF 84], but did not otherwise modify ECF 48. On January 5, 2018, Defendants’ served two sets of interrogatories on Plaintiff, one set by each of the two defendants. Each set of interrogatories was identical. As structured with numerous, separate subparts, each set of interrogatories posed over ninety interrogatories. Plaintiff served his answers to each Defendant on February 7, 2018, but answered only the initial 25 interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Defendants’ objected to Plaintiff’s answers because Plaintiff had not answered all of the interrogatories from each of the Defendants, and after counsel for the parties met and conferred, Plaintiff agreed to revisit the interrogatories and if, after review, Plaintiff determined he would answer more of the interrogatories, Plaintiff would do so. Defendants’ then filed their Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Plaintiff, on April 9, 2018, served Amended Answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories, wherein Plaintiff answered a total of thirty-seven of each Defendant’s interrogatories. See Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Amended Answers to each of the Defendants’ Interrogatories. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS Section VII of the DSPO entered by the Court in this action is captioned “Discovery Disputes.” Section VII provides: The parties agree that before moving for an order relating to discovery after complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules of this District Court, the moving party must request a status conference with the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(3)(B)(v).1 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(3)(B)(v) provides that “the scheduling order may . . . direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court . . . “ Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Local Rule 26-7(b) provides that “all motions to compel discovery must set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it.” In addition, Local Rule 26- 7(c) provides: Discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good- faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-and- confer conference about each disputed discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) provides: Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2). The 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) provides that: Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as "subparts" questions that seek information about discretely separate subjects. However, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)1 provides: Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweigh its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery In Kendall v. GES Exposition Services Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997), the court held that the subparts of an interrogatory are to be counted as part of but one interrogatory if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question. The court stated that the best test to determine whether subparts are subsumed and related, is to examine whether the first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question. If the question in the subpart can be answered independently of the "primary" question, then it should be treated as a separate interrogatory. Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Kendall also held that an interrogatory which asks for information, and which also asks for the identification of documents relating to that information, contains two interrogatories. The court explained that the second question was "really a fugitive request for production of documents and the discovery effort would be better served in that format." Id. at 686. In Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd, Case No. 2:14-cv-1099-JCM-VCF, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8248, 10-11 (D. Nev. January 22, 2016). the court again did a review of whether or not one single interrogatory contained discrete subparts. Gosal's objection relies on its contention that Mitschke's Interrogatory No. 3 is actually seventeen separate interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 3 asks "[s]tate the full factual and legal basis for all defenses alleged by you rising out of the August 1, 2013 incident." Gosal answered by providing the factual and legal basis for each of its seventeen affirmative defenses. "[S]ubparts of an interrogatory are to be counted as part of one interrogatory if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question." Phillips v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:10-CV-02068-GMN, 2012 WL 135705, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2012). The "test to determine whether subparts are subsumed and related, is to examine whether the first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question. If the question in the subpart can be answered independently of the 'primary' question, then it should be treated as a separate interrogatory." Id. While styled as a single question, Interrogatory No. 3 makes seventeen separate inquiries into each of Gosal's affirmative defenses. Gosal may refuse to answer Interrogatories No. 12 through No. 25 as these interrogatories exceed the maximum number permitted by Rule 33, absent stipulation or court order. ARGUMENT I. Non-Compliance with Local Rule 26(7)(b) and the DPSO. So far as Plaintiff is aware, the Defendants’ did not request a status conference with the Court prior to making their motion to compel. See ECF 48, VII. In addition, Defendants’ Motion does not set out the text of each interrogatory, Plaintiff’s objections to each interrogatory, and Plaintiff substantive response to 25 interrogatories as required by Local Rule 26(7)(b). Defendant’s Motion to Compel should therefore be denied. II. Defendants’ posed more than 25 interrogatories and Plaintiff Answered More than 36 interrogatories. Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 4 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Defendants’ Interrogatory 1 has eight discrete subparts. Each one of the subparts can be asked and answered independently without reference to any other part of the interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state your full name, any other names by which you have ever been known, your current residence address and telephone number, residence address(es) since January 1, 2010, date of birth, social security number, and driver’s license number (including state currently licensed therein). Plaintiff responded to all 8 interrogatories as follows. Interrogatory 1(1): State your full name: Response: Steven Gary Ringelberg. Interrogatory 1(2): State any other names by which you have ever been known: Response: None. Interrogatory 1(3): State your current address: Response: 6721 VanderMuelen Road, Holland, Michigan, 49423 and 64 Incline Village Court, Henderson, NV 89074. Interrogatory 1(4): state your telephone number: Response: REDACTED. Interrogatory 1(5): state your residence addresses since January 1, 2010: Response: 2414 Eagle Ridge, Henderson, NV 89074; 2238 Chasing Start, Las Vegas, NV 89123; 113 3rd Street SE, Washington, DC 20003; 1341 H Street NE, Washington, DC 20002; 7 The Oaklands, Chandlers Ford, Eastliegh, Hampshire, SO43 3RP. Interrogatory 1(6): state your date of birth: Response: 10/27/1959. Interrogatory 1(7): state your social security number. CONFIDENTIAL Response: REDACTED Interrogatory 1(8)(i): state your driver’s license number and issuing state: CONFIDENTIAL Response: REDACTED. Michigan. Response: REDACTED. France. Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 5 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 2 posed 14 discrete interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support each of your claims or defenses in this action. Plaintiff, following the guidance of the court in Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd., answered all 14 separate sub-parts of Interrogatory 2 as set forth below: RESPONSE: Interrogatory 2(1): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim I in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(2): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim II in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(3): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim III in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(4): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim IV in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 6 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(5): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim V in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(6): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim VI in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(7): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim VII in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(8): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim VIII in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(9): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim IX in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(10): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 7 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim X in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(11): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim XI in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(12): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim XII in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(13): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your Claim XIII in this action. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Interrogatory 2(14): Please describe, by category and location, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in your possession, custody, or control, which you intend to use to support your defenses in this action. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as Defendants’ have not posed any claims against Plaintiff in this action. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). Defendants’ Interrogatory Number 3 contains 14 separate interrogatories per the court in Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 8 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd., supra. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to the negotiations between you and Vanguard leading up to the executed settlement agreement and release attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Settlement Agreement”) and each of the allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint, including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Plaintiff answered all 14 interrogatories posed to him under the heading “Interrogatory No. 3. ” as set forth below. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 because it has thirteen discrete subparts and therefore Defendant has served more than 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Plaintiff further objects to the extent Defendants seek privileged information. Plaintiff further responds as follows: Interrogatory 3(1): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to the negotiations between you and Vanguard leading up to the executed settlement agreement and release attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Settlement Agreement”) . . . including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used between May 19, 2015 and July 1, 2015. Interrogatory 3(2): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 9 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim I of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Response: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between June 1, 2010 and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(3): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim II of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between June 1, 2010 and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(4): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim III of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 10 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 used and maintained between May 1, 2015, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(5): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim IV of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 1, 2015, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(6): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim V of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between June 1, 2009, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(7): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim VI of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 11 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 7, 2007, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(8): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim VII of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 7, 2007, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(9): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim VIII of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 12 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between August 1, 2012 and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(10): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim IX of your Second Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between August 1, 2012 and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(11): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim X of your Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 15, 2015, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(12): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim XI of your Amended Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 13 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 15, 2015, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(13): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim XII of your Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 15, 2015, and today’s date. Interrogatory 3(14): Please identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including, without limitation, all diaries, journals, calendars, logs, notebooks, notes, or other records, in which you recorded information relating in any way to allegations in Claim XIII of your Amended Complaint including in your response the dates during which you used and/or maintained those items. Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory because Defendant has served more the 25 interrogatories on Plaintiff in violation of Rule 33(a)(1)(“. . . a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), please see the Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 14 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 documents produced in response to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiff’s disclosures under Rule 26(a). The documents were used and maintained between May 15, 2015, and today’s date. Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 4 is, in fact Interrogatory No. 37 and Plaintiff has answered it. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 only permits Defendants’ to pose 25 interrogatories, Plaintiff did not answer Interrogatories after the actual 37th Interrogatory. Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 5 has 14 discrete subparts under Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd., supra, and is really Interrogatories 38 through 51. Interrogatory No. 6 has 14 discrete subparts under Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd., supra, and is really Interrogatories 52 through 65. Interrogatory No. 7 has 14 discrete subparts under Mitschke v. Gosal Trucking Ltd., supra, and is really Interrogatories 66 through 79. Defendants’ remaining Interrogatories are therefore numbers the 80th through 91st interrogatories posed by Defendants to plaintiff. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Additional Answers to Interrogatories should be denied. Respectfully submitted, April 10, 2018 /s/ Daniel Norr___________ Daniel Norr Nevada Bar No. 6438 Law Office of Daniel Norr, LLC 170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 300 Henderson, NV 89012 (702) 990-3237 Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 15 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system on April 10, 2018. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the service list below in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive Notices of Electronic Filing electronically. /s/ Daniel Norr______________________ Daniel Norr SERVICE LIST Vincent J. Aiello Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Attorney for Defendants Case 2:17-cv-01788-JAD-PAL Document 135 Filed 04/10/18 Page 16 of 16