McReynolds v. Schmidli, 4:16-01055-CV-W-HFS. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20180424b16
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL HOWARD F. SACHS , District Judge . By letter dated April 18, submitted on behalf of both sides, informal assistance is sought regarding pending interrogatories addressed to plaintiff. Judicial assistance is very rarely sought on such questions and my familiarity with common discovery practice is rusty, to say the least. My supposition is that interrogatories in the first case should be treated as having been filed in the second identical case. I would, however, tend t
Summary: MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL HOWARD F. SACHS , District Judge . By letter dated April 18, submitted on behalf of both sides, informal assistance is sought regarding pending interrogatories addressed to plaintiff. Judicial assistance is very rarely sought on such questions and my familiarity with common discovery practice is rusty, to say the least. My supposition is that interrogatories in the first case should be treated as having been filed in the second identical case. I would, however, tend to..
More
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
HOWARD F. SACHS, District Judge.
By letter dated April 18, submitted on behalf of both sides, informal assistance is sought regarding pending interrogatories addressed to plaintiff. Judicial assistance is very rarely sought on such questions and my familiarity with common discovery practice is rusty, to say the least. My supposition is that interrogatories in the first case should be treated as having been filed in the second identical case. I would, however, tend to be liberal in allowing more interrogatories than authorized by the local rules, if reasonably needed for preparation.
The specific objections to interrogatories seem directed to defendants' request which is essentially for the plaintiff to lay out his whole case, as he can pull it together in advance of discovery. This is arguably unduly burdensome, since the case will develop during discovery — but it seems rather like the requirements of Rule 26, applicable to both sides. Different district judges probably have different reactions. If counsel cannot work this out I request some citations regarding current practice, focused on this subject. In general, I favor both sides laying their cards on the table, but this should not be pursued tediously since the case is supposedly still in an embryonic status.
Source: Leagle
