Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00607/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00607-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

Interrogatory No. 2 was dependent on the response to Interrogatory No. 1. Given the Court’s

1

ruling, infra, on the motion to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 1, the motion with regard to

Interrogatory No. 2 is moot.

1 07cv607

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT STILLWELL, et al., Civil No. 07cv607 JM (CAB)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

[Doc. No. 45.]

v.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

On March 25, 2009, the Court held a telephonic hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel

further interrogatory responses. Jeff Fillerup, Esq., and Diana Donabedian, Esq., appeared for Plaintiffs. 

Randy Grossman, Esq., and Kelly O’Donnell, Esq., appeared for Defendant. Having considered the

briefs submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

This is a breach of contract case in which Plaintiffs, RadioShack franchisees, claim that

RadioShack breached various provisions of their franchise agreements. Defendant propounded

interrogatories on Plaintiffs and moved to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2.1

Interrogatory No. 1 asks:

Do YOU contend that the form franchise agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to YOUR

COMPLAINT was not the product of the class action settlement in HEW Corporation et al.

Case 3:07-cv-00607-JM-CAB Document 65 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 3
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

2 07cv607

v. Tandy Corporation (as referenced in Paragraph 9 of YOUR COMPLAINT)?

Plaintiffs’ response included objections and stated:

Without waving the foregoing objections and without waiving any privileges, Plaintiff

responds as follows: Plaintiff believes that its franchise agreement includes concessions that

RadioShack made to RadioShack franchisees as part of a settlement of the franchisees’ suit

against RadioShack in the 1970's, and that the revised franchise agreement has the meaning

and interpretation alleged in the complaint in this case. The Plaintiff will also produce

business records in responding to this interrogatory.

 Defendant argues that Interrogatory No. 1 calls for a yes or no answer and the response served by

Plaintiffs does not answer the question. Defendant’s interrogatory references a specific document, the

agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ complaint and asks whether it was the “product of the class

action settlement.” Plaintiffs’ response refers to “its franchise agreement” and states it includes

concessions made as part of the settlement of a 1970 franchise suit and further refers to “the revised

franchise agreement.” It is ambiguous whether the response is referring to the same agreement as the

“form franchise agreement” attached as an exhibit to the complaint and the same settlement. 

In its opposition to the motion to compel, Plaintiffs state that the “concessions [made to settle the

class action suit] were memorialized in the revised franchise agreement” and “each plaintiff is a party to

that form of the franchise agreement that resulted from the class action.” (Doc. 61 at 2.) It could be

inferred from this statement that (1) the form franchise agreement – Exhibit 1 – is the same document

Plaintiff refers to in its response as “its franchise agreement” and “the revised franchise agreement” and

(2) Exhibit 1 was the result of the class action settlement. However the plaintiff’s verified response

remains ambiguous. Moreover, arguments made by counsel suggest that the agreement attached to the

Plaintiffs’ complaint is an exemplar of the franchise agreement Defendant is alleged to have breached

but may not be the precise agreement as to each Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to a further response. However, the agreements at issue in

this case need to first be identified with specificity. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not required to provide a

further response to Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiffs are required to identify to Defendant the franchise

agreement each Plaintiff claims was breached by specifically identifying the document using whatever 

///

Case 3:07-cv-00607-JM-CAB Document 65 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 3
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

3 07cv607

identifying production numbers apply or producing such agreements if not previously produced, no later

than April 1, 2009.

Defendant may serve interrogatories for verified response regarding the identified documents and

their relationship to the class action settlement, no later than April 3, 2009. Responses to the

interrogatories will be due in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 27, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00607-JM-CAB Document 65 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 3