RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY RESPOSES

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (the "Motion to Compel")1 filed by Citco Technology Management, Inc. ("CTM"), Citco Banking Corporation N.V. ("Citco Banking"), Citco Fund Services (Cayman Islands) Limited ("CFS Cayman"), and The Citco Group Limited ("Citco Group") (collectively, the "Citco Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Firefighters' Retirement System ("FRS"), Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Louisiana ("MERS"), and New Orleans Firefighters' Pension & Relief Fund ("NOFF") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have filed an opposition.2 For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Compel is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

I. Background

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed suit against 23 defendants, including the Citco Defendants, asserting claims under the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as third party beneficiary, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and general tort claims.3 Plaintiffs' claims arise from a $100 million investment loss. In April of 2008, the Louisiana Funds purchased 100,000 Series N Shares offered and issued by FIA Leveraged Fund ("Leveraged") for $100 million.4 After a series of investment transactions initiated by Leveraged, in March of 2011, Plaintiffs sought to redeem their Series N shares.5 Ultimately, the shares went unredeemed and Plaintiffs determined that the investment was illiquid and, thus, the N shares, for which there was no market, were valueless.6

On September 30, 2016, the District Judge ruled on various motions to dismiss. The following claims remain against CFS Cayman: (1) seller liability under La. R.S. 51:712(A)(2) based on Plaintiffs' allegation that CFS Cayman was a "substantial factor" in the sale of the Series N shares;7 (2) control person liability based on Plaintiffs' allegation that CFS Cayman was designated in the offering documents to provide information to prospective investors about the offering;8 (3) a third party beneficiary claim;9 (4) negligent misrepresentation based on Plaintiffs' allegation that CFS Cayman was the designated Administrator of Leveraged and that, as such, CFS Cayman would perform various functions including "computing the NET Asset Value ["NAV"] of the Fund's Shares;"10 and (5) a holder claim.11 As to CTM, Citco Banking, and Citco Group, the following claims remain: (1) seller liability based on allegations that defendants are liable as sellers due to their extensive relationship with operations of Leveraged;12 (2) control person liability based on allegations that Citco Defendants delivered the offering memorandum to Plaintiffs in Louisiana, that the offering documents represented the terms negotiated by the Citco Defendants, and that the Citco Defendants played a critical role in providing information necessary for Plaintiffs to make the investment;13 (3) negligent misrepresentation based on allegations that Plaintiffs based their investment on the Citco Defendants' representations;14 and (4) a holder claim15

On May 15, 2017, the Citco Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (the "2017 Motion to Compel").16 In opposition to the 2017 Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that the Citco Defendants had propounded contention interrogatories that were more properly responded to at or near the end of the discovery period.17 Significant to the current Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argued in opposition to the 2017 Motion to Compel that "[b]ecause of Citco's actions and the nature of this case"18 — which Plaintiffs characterized as a "`fraudulent omission' case"19 — "further responses to Citco's interrogatories should be delayed until the document production is completed by Citco and the representatives of Citco are deposed. This will allow the Funds to fully and adequately address the subject matter of the interrogatories."20 In asserting this position, Plaintiffs relied on numerous cases deferring responses to contention interrogatories to the end of discovery based on goals of "narrowing issues and streamlining litigation,"21 and ensuring responses based on fully developed discovery records.22

Following briefing and discussion with the parties during a June 27, 2017 status conference, the court ruled that Plaintiffs would supplement their responses to the particular contention interrogatories at issue in the 2017 Motion to Compel at the end of the fact discovery period.23 Thereafter, Plaintiffs argued that the court's ruling was "equally applicable to a substantial number of other interrogatories propounded by Citco" and requested leave to file a motion for protective order "so that the Court can determine that these additional interrogatories meet the definition of a contention interrogatory" and that Plaintiffs could defer supplemental responses to these interrogatories until the end of the fact discovery period.24 During a July 25, 2017 status conference, the parties agreed to defer Plaintiffs' responses to all contention interrogatories until the end of the fact discovery period.25

Plaintiffs timely provided supplemental responses to the contention interrogatories at the close of the fact discovery period. During a May 7, 2018 status conference, the Citco Defendants complained that in response to the contention interrogatories Plaintiffs submitted a "Master Response," that failed to specifically identify and differentiate between the four Citco Defendants, and that certain of Plaintiffs' responses were otherwise non-responsive.26 The Citco Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs should be required to answer each contention interrogatory separately by first stating whether a particular defendant did a particular thing, and then Plaintiffs could further assert in response whether the actions of other Citco Defendants should be imputed to the particular defendant. Counsel for Plaintiffs argued that the Master Response was detailed and provided the Citco Defendants with Plaintiffs' theory of the case, including specifying which Citco Defendant committed which act or omission. The court granted the Citco Defendants leave to file a Motion to Compel regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' contention interrogatory responses.27

On May 14, 2018, the Citco Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel.28 Therein, the Citco Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' interrogatory responses "are replete with non-responsive and evasive answers that improperly incorporate hundreds of pages of extraneous materials by reference. And, not only have Plaintiffs failed to directly respond to many interrogatories, but they have also impermissibly grouped all Citco Defendants together without specifying which Citco Defendant is responsible for the particular acts alleged in the Petition."29

II. Law and Analysis

A. Legal Standards

"Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable."30 The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)."31

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) provides that "[a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time."32 A contention interrogatory is "an interrogatory that asks a party to state what it contends, state whether it makes a specified contention, state all the facts upon which it bases a contention, take a position and explain or defend the position concerning how the law applies to facts, or state the legal or theoretical basis for a contention."33 "The primary purpose of contention interrogatories, like those served here at the end of discovery, is to narrow the issues for trial."34

This court has explained that "an interrogatory may reasonably ask for the material or principal facts which support a contention, including those asserted in affirmative defenses. As with any interrogatory, however, a contention interrogatory may be overly broad where it seeks `each and every' single fact upon which a party bases its case."35 "Courts generally resist efforts to use contention interrogatories as a vehicle to obtain every fact and piece of evidence a party may wish to offer concerning a given issue at trial."36 Instead, "[c]ourts have `tended toward a middle ground, requiring parties to explain the factual bases for their contentions by providing the material facts upon which they will rely, but not a detailed and exhaustive listing of all of the evidence that will be offered.'"37 This court has explained that "[b]y or soon after the close of discovery, a `defendant should be able to generally explain the factual basis for each'" of its contentions.38

B. Propriety of Plaintiffs' Use of A Master Response

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) provides that "[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing. . . ." The undersigned has previously held that interrogatory responses that refer generally to a deposition transcript do not meet this standard.39 Courts interpreting Rule 33 have found that "it is `technically improper and unresponsive for an interrogatory to refer to outside material, such as pleadings, depositions, or other interrogatories.'"40

As an initial matter, the Citco Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' responses to the contention interrogatories "incorporate two different sets of extraneous materials: Plaintiffs' expert reports and their `Master Response,' a 75-page document intended to lay out Plaintiffs' theory of the case. As to their expert reports, Plaintiffs' interrogatory responses incorporate by reference each of their four expert reports without once specifying any particular sections or statements in any of those reports."41 While the Citco Defendants characterize both the Master Response and Plaintiffs' expert reports as extraneous materials, the Citco Defendants "do not take issue with the Master Response simply because it is technically an extraneous document."42 Instead, the Citco Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' references to the Master Response are problematic in particular instances because Plaintiffs have "either (a) referred to specific paragraphs in the Master Response that are themselves not responsive to the interrogatory being answered, or (b) referred to the entire Master Response. . .leaving the Citco Defendants to guess which specific statements in the Master Response Plaintiffs purport to be relying on."43

Plaintiffs respond that the "Master Response is a verified pleading prepared and filed simultaneously with the Interrogatories to avoid duplicating the same language for multiple interrogatory responses."44 Review of the Master Response confirms that signed Verifications by authorized representatives of FERS, MERS, and NOFF were attached to the Master Response.45 Here, where the Citco Defendants have not taken issue with the Master Response simply because it is a document separate from Plaintiffs' individualized responses to the contention interrogatories (discussed below), and Plaintiffs have represented that the Master Response is, in part, meant to streamline Plaintiffs' responses to the contention interrogatories and avoid unnecessary duplication, the court proceeds to consider Plaintiffs' specific responses to the contention interrogatories, including Plaintiffs' incorporation of the Master Response, below.46

Plaintiffs' reliance on their expert reports en masse and without specific pin point citations to particular lines and paragraphs of those expert reports is potentially another matter.47 However, because each of the responses in which the expert reports are cited also includes an additional narrative response, the undersigned finds that this is not a situation in which a party has simply referred to extraneous material in order to respond to the interrogatory. Instead, Plaintiffs have provided a narrative response to each interrogatory and have also directed the Citco Defendants to Plaintiffs' expert reports.

C. Plaintiffs' "Grouping" of the Citco Defendants in the Master Response

Although the Citco Defendants do not globally take issue with Plaintiffs' reliance on the Master Response as an "extraneous" document, the Citco Defendants do argue that Plaintiffs improperly "lump[] all four Citco Defendants together and [have] refused in their interrogatory responses to identify which Citco Defendant they contend is responsible for any alleged act or omission."48

In response, Plaintiffs assert that they "are not aware of any law which precludes all four defendants for being liable for the same conduct given the common control by the Citco Group as well as each entity being a financial beneficiary of $50 million from the offering."49 Plaintiffs further argue that "the Master Response refers to the conduct of specific entities and the conduct of the employees and representatives during each of the three periods"50 and that "all of the entities function as one entity based upon the common control of the Citco Group. . . ."51

1. There Has Been No Determination that the Citco Defendants Are a Single Business Enterprise

In their Petition, Plaintiffs allege that:

Per Plaintiffs' Master Response, Plaintiffs assert that "Ex. 1151, pages 11 to 63, sets forth in detail a full description of Citco's integrated business operation as described by Ernst and Young."53 In addition to relying on this exhibit, Plaintiffs also cite to "Ex. 581," which includes a "company description" section.54 Based on the undersigned's review of the Master Response, it appears that Plaintiffs primarily rely on these two exhibits to support their contention that the Citco Defendants should be treated as a combined enterprise and that the actions of one particular Citco Defendant should be imputed to the other Citco Defendants.

As the District Judge in this matter previously observed with respect to personal jurisdiction over each Citco Defendant, "[r]elated, but separately incorporated entities enjoy a presumption of independence which may be rebutted only by `clear evidence' of interdependence or joint control beyond `the mere existence of a corporate relationship.'"55 Although the District Judge found Plaintiffs' allegations of common control by Citco Group were sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Citco Group,56 the District Judge also explained that "[t]he mere allegation that the various Citco entities are commonly held by a parent holding company is not prima facie evidence that all Citco subsidiaries comprise a `single business entity', which is essentially what the Plaintiffs contend without invoking the actual terms."57 "Under Louisiana law, the single business enterprise theory is subject to an 18 part test. Plaintiffs' allegations are woefully short of prima facie proof which would justify treating the various Citco subsidiaries as a single business enterprise."58 Although the District Judge in this matter has directed the parties to the various factors to be considered when determining whether a single business enterprise exists, there has been no determination as to whether the Citco Defendants constitute a single business enterprise under Louisiana law.

2. Plaintiffs Master Response Must Consistently Specify Which Citco Defendant took the Alleged Action

Notwithstanding the fact that the District Judge has not determined whether the Citco Defendants should be considered a single business enterprise, the undersigned finds that there are a number of problems with Plaintiffs' treatment of the Citco Defendants as a "combined enterprise" and Plaintiffs' reference to Exhibits 1151 and 581 in the Master Response. First, Plaintiffs' reliance in the Master Response on Exhibits 1151 and 581 is improper and unresponsive.59 Plaintiffs' citation to large swathes of these documents does not respond to the question of what Plaintiffs contend the basis for asserting the Citco Defendants should be considered as a combined or single business enterprise is.60 As explained above, although Plaintiffs have consistently taken the position that the Citco Defendants should be treated as a single enterprise,61 there has been no judicial determination regarding that fact. Moreover, even if the Citco Defendants are ultimately determined to be a single business enterprise (such that the actions of one Defendant may be imputed to the others), that does not absolve Plaintiffs from responding to the interrogatories asked and specifying which Citco Defendant actually acted.62

The contention interrogatories propounded by the Citco Defendants uniformly ask Plaintiffs to specifically identify which Citco Defendant did what. Although Plaintiffs explicitly identify a particular Citco Defendant or employee at certain points in Plaintiffs' 75-page Master Response,63 the Master Response is replete with generic references to "Citco." Plaintiffs define the term "Citco" for purposes of their discovery responses to mean Citco Group, CFS Cayman, Citco Fund Services (Suisse) S.A., Citco Banking, Citco Trading, Inc., CTM, and their representatives.64 Not only does Plaintiffs' definition of this term include entities which are not defendants, it appears that Plaintiffs alternate between the generic term and specific identification throughout the Master Response. For example, while Plaintiffs state that "CFS Cayman agreed to serve as the independent administrator," the same paragraph of the Master Response also states that "[a]s the independent administrator, Citco was responsible for insuring that all redemptions and use of the proceeds of the Leveraged offering were in accordance with the Offering Memorandum. . . ."65

In light of the purpose of these contention interrogatories to narrow the issues at trial, and especially where responses to these contention interrogatories were deferred to the end of the fact discovery period in order for Plaintiffs to be able to fully respond to these interrogatories, Plaintiffs must revise their Master Response to identify specifically the particular defendant to which they refer. Although the undersigned agrees with Plaintiffs that they are allowed to argue that the actions of one Citco Defendant should be imputed to another, the District Judge has not ruled that the Citco Defendants should (or should not) be considered a single business enterprise or that the actions of one defendant may otherwise be imputed to the others. In any event, the contention interrogatories at issue ask Plaintiffs to specifically identify the actions taken by each Citco Defendant. To the extent Plaintiffs can identify the specific actor, they must do so.66 To the extent they cannot (or still do not know despite completing fact discovery), they must so state. Plaintiffs must answer the interrogatories asked for each individual Citco Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to revise their Master Response67 to identify specifically the particular Defendant to which they refer, or to state that they cannot identify the specific Citco Defendant which acted.

3. Plaintiffs' Grouping of the Citco Defendants in Response to Particular Contention Interrogatories68

The Citco Defendants specifically assert that Plaintiffs' responses to four particular interrogatories improperly group all the Citco Defendants together without specifying the acts of each particular Defendant. The interrogatories that fall within this category are: (1) CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 14; Citco Group Interrogatory No. 1569; (2) Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 24 to FRS;70 (3) Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 25 to FRS;71 and (4) CTM Interrogatory No. 22 to FRS.72 With respect to Citco Banking interrogatory number 24 directed to FRS,73 and in addition to arguing that Plaintiffs' response is insufficient based on improper grouping, the Citco Defendants also argue that "Plaintiffs' response does not answer subparts (c) and (d) of the interrogatory, which ask Plaintiffs to identify when they relied on each of the alleged omissions in deciding to hold the Series N shares and how much of their investment Plaintiffs would have redeemed on each such date had the supposedly omitted information been disclosed."74

Plaintiffs' revision of the Master Response to identify the specific actor (or state that they cannot identify the specific Citco Defendant which acted) would adequately address the "improper grouping" issue raised by the Citco Defendants with respect to these four interrogatories. Accordingly, in light of the order requiring Plaintiffs to revise the Master Response to identify the specific actor (or state that they cannot identify the specific Citco Defendant which acted), the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to (1) CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 14; Citco Group Interrogatory No. 1575; (2) Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 25 to FRS;76 and (3) CTM Interrogatory No. 22 to FRS77 is DENIED AS MOOT.

Additionally, with respect to Citco Banking interrogatory number 24 directed to FRS, the undersigned agrees that Plaintiffs have not responded to subparts (c) and (d) of the interrogatory.78 In their opposition, Plaintiffs contend that they "would not have purchased the securities in the first place if Plaintiffs had known the complete facts."79 Plaintiffs further aver that had certain information been disclosed, "Plaintiffs would not have invested and each day after the investment on April 1, 2008, the Plaintiffs would have redeemed 100% of their shares upon the discovery of the $50 million financial benefits. Each and every day after these non-disclosures, Plaintiffs would have redeemed the entire amount."80 These assertions appear to be responsive to subparts (c) and (d) of the interrogatory; however, they are not included in Plaintiffs' verified response thereto. Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 24 to FRS81 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide a supplemental verified response to subparts (c) and (d) of Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 24 to FRS.

III. Particular Interrogatories for which the Citco Defendants Contend Plaintiffs' Responses are Non-Responsive

The Citco Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs' responses to six interrogatories are non-responsive because they rely on portions of the Master Response that are in themselves non-responsive or that Plaintiffs' answers are otherwise evasive.

1. Citco Defendants' Interrogatory No. 1

The Citco Defendants propounded the following interrogatory:

Both parties seem to agree that this interrogatory seeks information relevant to Plaintiffs' "failure to register" claim.83 The Citco Defendants point to the language of La. R.S. § 51:705(A) to argue that for Plaintiffs to prevail on this claim, they must show, inter alia, that "each Citco Defendant offered or sold the Series N shares in Louisiana."84 Plaintiffs argue in opposition to the Motion to Compel that they "have stated over and over that no Citco representative came to Louisiana to offer the securities. . ." and that the Citco Defendants are liable for "failing to register" the Series N shares based on other reasons.85

In their particular response to this interrogatory as to CFS Cayman, Plaintiffs state that:

Regarding Citco Banking, Citco Group, and CTM, Plaintiffs assert that these Defendants were "control person[s] of Leveraged, as explained in [responses to previous interrogatories], [and are] responsible for the acts of the issuer in delivering the Offering Memorandum to Plaintiff in Louisiana. (See para. 61 to 70 of Master Response)."87 In further response, Plaintiffs state that "Citco Bank was the financial beneficiary of the misrepresentations and omissions in the Series N Offering Memorandum" and "was a member of the integrated group of companies operated by Citco Group. . . ."88 With regard to Citco Group, Plaintiffs additionally state that Citco Group "exercised its substantial assistance through its wholly owned subsidiary CFS Cayman. Two members of the Citco Group Executive Committee, Mr. Smeets, and Mr. Unternaehrer were at all times knowledgeable of the facts and issues set forth in detail relating to Period One" and that "Citco Group and the Executive Committee of Citco Group at all times controlled the operations of CFS Cayman. . . ."89 With respect to CTM, Plaintiffs additionally assert that:

In addition to these responses, Plaintiffs cite to paragraphs 21 through 101 of the Master Response and, for CTM, "the expert reports submitted by Plaintiff in this matter."91

The Citco Defendants complain that Plaintiffs' responses to interrogatory number 1 are non-responsive "because [they] do not answer the basic question of whether any Citco Defendant sold the Series N shares in Louisiana."92 The Citco Defendants assert that the interrogatory "simply asks whether a particular Citco Defendant itself delivered the Series N offering memorandum to Plaintiffs in Louisiana."93 As the court reads interrogatory number 1, that is arguably not what the Citco Defendants asked. Instead, the interrogatory asks whether a particular defendant "prepared and delivered to [Plaintiff] in Louisiana the offering memorandum." It is unclear whether "in Louisiana" is meant to modify the location of Plaintiffs or instead the location of a defendant's actions. In light of this ambiguity, Plaintiffs' response that CFS Cayman "assisted" in the preparation of the offering memorandum is responsive.94 However, based on the court's review of the portions of the Master Response cited by Plaintiffs, there does not appear to be any explicit answer to the question of whether any Citco Defendant itself actually delivered the offering memorandum to Plaintiffs in Louisiana. In their briefing in opposition to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs assert that they "have stated over and over that no Citco representative came to Louisiana to offer the securities. . . ."95 This is not, however, part of Plaintiffs' sworn responses to the contention interrogatories. Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to interrogatory number 196 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their sworn interrogatory responses to interrogatory number 1 propounded by each Citco Defendant to state whether any representative of any Citco Defendant delivered the Offering Memorandum to Plaintiff(s) in Louisiana.97

2. Citco Defendants' Interrogatory No. 4

Interrogatory number 4 asks Plaintiffs to:

In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the Master Response99 and, for CFS Cayman, Citco Banking and CTM, focus on the alleged misrepresentations and omissions of CFS Cayman.100 However, with respect to the interrogatory directed to Citco Group, Plaintiffs state that "the omissions made by each Citco Defendant are the Period One misrepresentations. . .the Period Two misrepresentations and the Period Three misrepresentations. . . ."101 Plaintiffs further assert that "Citco Group, CFS Cayman, Citco Bank, Mr. Smeets, and Mr. Unternaehrer were at all times knowledgeable of the issues set forth in detail related to Period One to Three," that "[t]he Citco Group and the Executive Committee of the Citco Group at all times controlled the operations of CFS Cayman. . .," and that "these parties had knowledge of the misrepresentation and omissions. . . ."102

As ordered above, Plaintiffs must revise their Master Response to identify the specific actor (or state that they cannot identify the specific Citco Defendant which acted). Once Plaintiffs have made these required revisions, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs' responses to interrogatory number 4 are generally responsive with the exception of the last two subsections (i.e., those improperly numbered as repeat subsections (v) and (vi)). In opposition to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs assert that they "would not have invested and each day after the investment on April 1, 2008, the Plaintiffs would have redeemed 100% of their shares upon the discovery of the $50 million financial benefits. Each and every day after these non-disclosures, Plaintiffs would have redeemed the entire amount."103 These assertions appear to the undersigned to be responsive to the second subparts (v) and (vi) of the interrogatory; however, they are not included in Plaintiffs' verified response thereto. Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to interrogatory 4104 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide a supplemental response to interrogatory number 4 by revising the Master Response and by providing a supplemental response to the second subparts (v) and (vi) of the interrogatory.

3. CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 10; Citco Group Interrogatory No. 11

These interrogatories ask Plaintiffs to

In response to these interrogatories, Plaintiffs contend that "CFS Cayman's involvement in the Leveraged Series N Offering, its actions after the Offering, as well as its failure to take industry standard actions are set forth in detail" in paragraphs 21 through 156 of the Master Response.106 Additionally, Plaintiffs aver that CFS Cayman "had an affirmative duty" to disclose known adverse financial information about Leveraged and that "CFS Cayman failed to disclose known adverse financial information or known conflicts of interest, all of which is contrary to industry standards, and all of which is discussed in the expert reports issued submitted [sic] by Plaintiff in this matter."107

With regard to Citco Banking, Plaintiffs aver that "it is a violation of industry standard for a bank such as Citco Bank, that is a member of the same control group as the administrator, CFS Cayman, to receive the proceeds of an offering subject to the Louisiana Blue Sky law. . .and not disclose the history of the loan or its evaluation of the borrower, all of which is more fully detailed in the expert reports submitted by Plaintiff in this matter."108 As to Citco Group, Plaintiffs answer that two members of the Citco Group Executive Committee were knowledgeable of the "facts and issues" set forth in in paragraphs 21 through 156 of the Master Response, that those two members "at all times controlled the operations of CFS Cayman because of the high risk and profile of the Fletcher entities," and that Citco Group "had an affirmative duty to disclose the adverse financial information about Leveraged that was known to it" as discussed in Plaintiffs' expert reports.109 Finally, with respect to CTM, Plaintiffs state that "CTM failed to take industry-standard steps by supporting the efforts of CFS Cayman" and that CFS Cayman's actions "would not have been possible without CTM."110 Specifically with respect to CTM, Plaintiffs go on to state:

While the court has concerns with Plaintiffs' attempt to incorporate almost the entirety (or in the case of CTM, the entirety) of its Master Response as an answer to these interrogatories, the undersigned also finds that Plaintiffs' revision of the Master Response to be consistently specific as to each Citco Defendant's actions will alleviate much of that concern. Further, and setting aside the as-ordered revisions to the Master Response, the undersigned finds Plaintiffs' responses to these interrogatories with respect to CFS Cayman, Citco Banking, CTM, and Citco Group to be generally responsive because Plaintiffs have generally set forth the basis for their contention that each of these Defendants failed to take "industry standard steps." Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel supplemental responses to CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 10; Citco Group Interrogatory No. 11112 is DENIED.

4. CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 13; Citco Group No. 14

These interrogatories ask Plaintiffs to

In response to these interrogatory regarding CFS Cayman and Citco Banking Plaintiffs reference paragraphs 21-101 of the Master Response and Plaintiffs' expert reports.114 With regard to Citco Group, Plaintiffs assert that "Citco Group exercised its substantial assistance through its wholly owned subsidiary CFS Cayman" and that members of the Citco Group executive committee were knowledgeable of the facts set out in the Master Response.115 Finally, with respect to CTM, Plaintiffs contend (as they did in response to CTM interrogatory number 10, above), the actions of CFS Cayman would not have been possible without the computer systems and programs provided by CTM.116

Generally speaking, paragraphs 21 through 101 of the Master Response (which purport to set out the "Period One" facts) outline Plaintiffs' contentions regarding "Citco's" involvement in events leading up to issuance of the Offering Memorandum, including "Citco's" knowledge of the alleged material omissions regarding the Offering Memorandum. With respect to some of these paragraphs, Plaintiffs have specifically identified the Citco Defendant to which the contention relates. For example, in paragraph 81 of the Master Response, Plaintiffs state that "CFS Cayman was the administrator of Leveraged and was required to approve the disclosures in the Offering Memorandum."117 However, for other portions of the Master Response, Plaintiffs generically refer to "Citco."118 As discussed above, Plaintiffs must revise their Master Response to specifically identify the Citco Defendant to which they refer. Following such revision, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs' reliance on the Master Response would be adequately responsive. Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel supplemental responses to CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM interrogatory number 13 and Citco Group interrogatory number 14 is DENIED AS MOOT.119

5. CFS Cayman Interrogatory 20 to FRS

Per interrogatory number 20 propounded by CFS Cayman to FRS, Plaintiffs are asked to

In response, Plaintiff states "that each NAV statement that it received from CFS Cayman stated a false value. The NAV statements that Plaintiff received demonstrated a consistent 1% increase monthly. However, the values of the assets making up the NAV were grossly overstated and failed to take into account the fact that such assets were illiquid."121

The undersigned finds Plaintiff's response to this interrogatory adequate. Plaintiff has asserted that every NAV statement received from CFS Cayman was erroneous based on a failure to take into account the liquidity of the assets. This response sufficiently outlines the general basis for Plaintiff's contention.122 Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 20 to FRS123 is DENIED.

6. CFS Cayman Interrogatory 22 to FRS

CFS Cayman interrogatory number 22 to FRS asks Plaintiff to

In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff identifies numerous responses to other interrogatories and then goes on to state that the "acts and omissions of Citco" set forth in paragraphs 21 through 156 of the Master Response "could not have been performed without the use of the computer systems and programs owned and provided to Citco by CTM."125

Plaintiff's response to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 22 incorporates a great deal of extraneous material (including exhibits 581 and 1151 and Plaintiffs' expert reports). However, Plaintiff has also set forth its contention that CTM's provision of computer systems and programs allowed "Citco Group, Citco Bank and CFS Cayman to initiate and perpetuate the acts and omissions against the Louisiana Funds."126 This is sufficient to meet Plaintiffs' obligation to generally explain the basis of their contention in response to this interrogatory. Accordingly, the Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 22127 is DENIED.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Compel128 is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to revise their Master Response129 to identify specifically the particular Defendant to which they refer, or to state that they cannot identify the specific Citco Defendant which acted.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to (1) CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM Interrogatory No. 14; Citco Group Interrogatory No. 15;130 (2) Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 25 to FRS;131 (3) CTM Interrogatory No. 22 to FRS;132 and (4) CFS Cayman/Citco Banking/CTM interrogatory number 13 and Citco Group interrogatory number 14133 is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 24 to FRS134 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide a supplemental verified response to subparts (c) and (d) of Citco Banking Interrogatory No. 24 to FRS.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to interrogatory number 1135 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their sworn interrogatory responses to interrogatory number 1 propounded by each Citco Defendant to state whether any representative of any Citco Defendant delivered the Offering Memorandum to Plaintiff(s) in Louisiana.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to interrogatory 4136 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide a supplemental response to interrogatory number 4 by revising the Master Response and by providing a supplemental response to subparts (v) and (vi) of the interrogatory.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel supplemental responses to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 10, Citco Banking interrogatory number 10, CTM interrogatory number 10, and Citco Group interrogatory number 11137 is DENIED.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 20 to FRS138 is DENIED.

The Citco Defendants' Motion to Compel a supplemental response to CFS Cayman interrogatory number 22139 is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall provide to the Citco Defendants the revised Master Response, as well as Plaintiffs' supplemental responses to the interrogatories as ordered herein, within twenty-one (21) days of this Ruling and Order.