United States District Court, D. Alaska
MATTHEW R. NYE, Plaintiff,
v.
VIKING SPIRIT, INC., in personam; VIGILANT, LLC, in personam; F/V VIGILANT, O.N. 1251422, her engine, tackle, gear, apparel, furniture and equipment, in rem, Defendants.
IN
ADMIRALTY
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANTS' FOURTH SET OF DISCOVERY
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court at Docket 79 is Defendants' Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses to Defendants' Fourth Set of
Discovery.[1] Plaintiff opposed at Docket 88; Defendants
replied at Docket 90.[2] Oral argument was not requested and was
not necessary to the Court's decision.
BACKGROUND
This is
an admiralty case brought by Plaintiff Matthew Nye against
Defendants Viking Spirit, Inc., Vigilant, LLC, and F/V
Vigilant, O.N. 1251422. Mr. Nye seeks damages for personal
injuries he sustained while he was a seaman aboard the F/V
Vigilant. Mr. Nye receives ongoing maintenance and
cure.[3]
On July
17, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling and Planning Order,
which set discovery deadlines and limited the number of
interrogatories to thirty, based on the agreement of the
parties.[4] In July 2017, Defendants served their
First Discovery Requests, which contained Interrogatory Nos.
1-20.[5] On September 25, 2017, Defendants served
their Second Discovery Requests, which contained
Interrogatory No. 21.[6] Interrogatory No. 21 states as follows:
Provide the following information for all out-of-country
travel since the date of the injury alleged in your
complaint: dates of all travel; cost and identity of all
persons and entities providing accommodations (e.g.,
motel/hotel/hostel/friends); destinations (countries, cities,
parks, recreational facilities; etc.); identity and contact
information for all fellow-passengers (including persons
travelling with you from the U.S. and persons with whom you
travelled with/between foreign destinations); the names of
all medical/therapy facilities and providers; dates of all
foreign treatment/therapy and the purposes of said treatment
(e.g., mind/body/spirit)[.][7]
Mr. Nye
objected on the basis that the interrogatory “is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks irrelevant information
and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
nonprivileged admissible evidence. . . . [and] because it is
vague and ambiguous.”[8] Mr. Nye nevertheless provided an
answer. In March 2018, Defendants served their Third
Discovery Requests, which included Interrogatory Nos.
22-24.[9] On April 1, 2018, Defendants served their
Fourth Discovery Requests, which included Interrogatory Nos.
25-34.[10] Mr. Nye responded to Interrogatory No.
25 and objected to Interrogatory Nos. 26-34, stating as
follows in response to each: “Plaintiff objects to this
Interrogatory because Defendants have exceeded the thirty
interrogatories permitted by the Court[']s Scheduling and
Planning Order. Interrogatory no. 21 included at least six
discrete subparts.”[11]
Defendants
now seek to compel Mr. Nye's response to Interrogatory
Nos. 26-34, asserting that: (1) Mr. Nye “waived any
objection to Defendants['] exceeding the
thirty-interrogatory limit by selectively answering
Defendants' fourth set of discovery”; and (2)
“Defendants' Interrogatory No. 21 should be
considered one interrogatory because it seeks information
directly related to Plaintiff's out-of-country
travel.”[12] Defendants also “request the Court
compel responses to Defendants' additional
interrogatories as a matter of efficiency and in
consideration of the discovery cutoff.”[13]
DISCUSSION
1.
Waiver
Defendants
assert that “[i]f a party believes that the numerical
limitation for interrogatories has been exceeded, it waives
the objection if it selectively answers some of the
interrogatories and objects on this ground to the
rest.”[14] Defendants point out that, citing
Allahverdi v. Regents of Univ. of New Mexico, a
District of Alaska court stated that “[a] party who
selectively responds to some interrogatories may be found to
have waived its objection to the number of
interrogatories.”[15] Mr. Nye responds that “the rule
of Allahverdi does not apply where a party serves
multiple sets of discovery requests.”[16]
Here,
Defendants served four sets of interrogatories. According to
Mr. Nye's calculation-by which Interrogatory No. 21
constituted six distinct interrogatories-the first three
discovery requests contained a total of twenty-nine separate
interrogatories.[17] Thus, according to Mr. Nye,
Defendants' Fourth Discovery Request represented the
thirtieth through thirty-ninth interrogatories served on Mr.
Nye in the case. Mr. Nye's decision to answer the first
interrogatory-titled Interrogatory No. 25 but representing
number 30 to Mr. Nye-and object to the remaining
interrogatories comported with Alaska Local Rule (Civil)
33.1, which provides:
(a) Duty to Answer. In the event that a
party is served with a number of interrogatories in excess of
the number permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 33(a)(1), the stipulation of the parties, or the order
of the court, the receiving party must answer or otherwise
interpose an objection, other than an objection that the
number of interrogatories exceeds the maximum allowed, to the
first number of interrogatories that do not exceed the
maximum number allowed.
(b) Response to Excess Interrogatories. The
party receiving the interrogatories may, as to each excess
interrogatory at the option of the party receiving the
interrogatories, either: (1) answer the interrogatory; or (2)
object to the interrogatory by signifying “Objection.
See Rule 33(a)(1).”[18]
Furthermore,
to require a party to respond sequentially only to the
mandated number of interrogatories and object to the rest
makes more sense than holding that a party who answers any
interrogatories has waived its numerosity objection
altogether-such a rule would “incentivize litigants to
file protective orders in every case before responding to a
single ...