Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Plaintiff Must Provide Sufficient Response
to Contention Interrogatories When
Information Is Known

Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ, 2007 WL 649332 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2007), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.'s motion to compel the plaintiff to fully answer interrogatories served on the plaintiff.

Background

The plaintiff brought this law suit alleging that defendant contaminated the soil, water, sediment, biota, and air through the Illinois River Watershed which posed a danger to the environment and human health. Id. at *1. Many of the interrogatories served on the plaintiff were contention interrogatories. Id. Contention interrogatories are not per se unreasonable. Id. at *2. The court stated that, "an interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact . . . ." Id.

Arguments

The defendant contended that it had tried to discover the nature of the plaintiff's claims, but was unable to do so because the plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories. Id. at *1. The plaintiff responded with numerous objections, including objections based upon work product and attorney client privilege. Id. The plaintiff asserted that the contention interrogatories are overly burdensome. Id. The defendant argued that the contention interrogatories required a narrative response. Id.

The parties disputed the number of interrogatories served by the defendant. Id. at *4. The plaintiff contended the number exceeded one-hundred, while the defendant contended that it served forty-nine. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court stated that a party responding to interrogatories must specify "by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived." Id. at *3. Although this case was complicated and the interrogatories served by the defendant were not simplistic, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently responded to the interrogatories. Id. The court was "not persuaded that all boxes contained responsive documents, that Plaintiff's method of referencing the boxes sufficiently identifie(d) responsive documents, or that the numerous documents referenced by Plaintiff as responsive to a given interrogatory satisfie(d) Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(d)." Id.

The court recognized that, although there are inherent difficulties in responding to contention interrogatories, those difficulties are not an excuse. Id. at *4. The court stated that a party may use Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(d) to respond; however, the party cannot reference whole boxes of documents as its response unless the entire box of documents is responsive. Id. "A response that references documents requires (1) that the responsive documents actually exist, and (2) that the reference to the documents be specific enough for the opposing party to locate the documents." Id. The court advised the plaintiff to reference the range of Bates numbers and the box number instead of just the box number in response. Id. The court cautioned that it was not intending to require a certain form of response, and the parties were still able to meet and confer to determine the appropriate manner of responding. Id.

In response to the argument over interrogatory counts, the court determined that quality, not quantity, is the guide for court and counsel in regards to discovery. Id. at *5. According to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(a), parties may not serve in excess of twenty-five interrogatories without leave of court or written stipulation. Id. The court stated that when an interrogatory may lead to admissible evidence, then will be allowed even if the total number would exceed twenty-five. Id. The court further concluded that the plaintiff responded with insufficient answers that did not provide useful information by essentially saying that "the violations occurred wherever a violation has occurred." Id.

The case was decided on February 26, 2007; this summary was posted January 10, 2008.