See, e.g., Swackhammer v. Sprint Corp., 225 F.R.D. 658, 664-65 (D. Kan. 2004); Nyfield v. Virgin Islands Telephone Corp., 200 F.R.D. 246, 247-48 (D.V.I. 2001); see also Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997) (“[I]nterrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory … if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Advisory Committee Note, 146 F.R.D. 401, 675-76 (1993) (“Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation [of 25 interrogatories] through Case 1:08-cv-02582 Document 25-3 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 37 of 40 Case 1:08-cv-02582 Document 25-3 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 38 of 40 Case 1:08-cv-02582 Document 25-3 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 39 of 40 Case 1:08-cv-02582 Document 25-3 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 40 of 40

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.

Moreover, an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2). Third, Defendant is obviously attempting to obtain an improper tactical advantage, and cannot have it both ways.

See id. at 454. Because Defendants either identified the specific forms relied upon or explained where the forms could be located in a central repository, the burden of deriving a further response to Interrogatory 13 is substantially the same between the parties, and Defendants’ reliance on Rule 33(d) is appropriate. To the extent that Interrogatory 13 requests that Defendants actually identify the specific downloads beyond those to which customers told TN they were entitled, Defendants have made clear to Oracle that TN can not provide that level of detail without specific product mapping information from Oracle. To undertake an analysis to determine which of the downloads are Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document334 Filed07/14/09 Page11 of 27 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 - DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

SOULCYCLE'S POSITION: A review of the Plaintiff's interrogatories as a whole demonstrates that Plaintiff has compacted multiple questions-within-questions into his 25 interrogatories. Interrogatories Nos. 22-25 are prime examples of an abuse of the 25 interrogatory limit, and SoulCycle stands on its objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) for the reasons stated below. Rule 33(a)(1) provides that a "party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Plaintiff objects that the request violates the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and calls for a premature disclosure of expert information. Additionally, the request is in excess of the number of interrogatories permitted by the Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Also, the request is outside the scope of discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

“Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(3). Plaintiffs did not verify their responses to Nationstar’s interrogatories.

The Presidio Trust C 07-5 170 EDL -18- Case 3:07-cv-05170-EDL Document 54 Filed 06/24/2008 Page 24 of 25 One of the requirements of the Federal Rules is that "[tlhe person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections." FRCP 33(b)(5). Thus, until a plaintiff has signed the answers to interrogatories, the requirements of the Federal Rules have not been complied with.

16-19. Therefore, any assertion that Plaintiffs have exceeded the default limit for interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) is simply wrong. Second, even if Plaintiffs exceeded the numerical limits of Rule 33(a), the Court has Case: 1:10-cv-05711 Document #: 707 Filed: 08/21/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:18135 10 authority to grant permission for further interrogatories in appropriate cases, such as the present complex, multi-party class action.

N, Defendants’ Counsel’s letter to RRD’s Counsel dated June 26, 2007. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF Document 154 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 5 of 10 6 portion of the documents identified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). To date, Defendants have refused to provide the remaining documents or to identify a date certain on which they will provide them.