Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00717/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00717-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 120 and 122.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOCELYN JONES and JOHN JONES,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0717 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 Plaintiffs jointly

propounded several sets of interrogatories on defendant St. Paul, and St. Paul has refused to answer

interrogatories 21-31 on the ground that plaintiffs have exceeded the 25 interrogatory limit contained

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). The parties disagree on whether interrogatory subparts should

count as separate interrogatories, and at which interrogatory plaintiffs reached the 25 limit. In any

event, plaintiffs concede that at least interrogatories 26 through 31 exceed the limit, and they request

leave to propound those additional interrogatories. Plaintiffs note if each plaintiff had propounded 

interrogatories separately, they each would not have exceeded the limit. Plaintiffs also assert that the

excess interrogatories are relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses, and thus that they need to

propound those interrogatories.

The Court will permit plaintiffs leave to propound the additional interrogatories. Although

defendant is correct that plaintiffs failed to comply with the Civil Local Rules regarding seeking

permission to exceed interrogatory limits, the Court also finds that the interrogatories at issue are

Case 3:06-cv-00717-SI Document 133 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 To the extent defendant has objected to certain contention interrogatories on the ground that

they call for a legal conclusion, the Court advises defendant of the general rule that an interrogatory “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 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(c). 

2

relevant, and that defendant has not shown any prejudice. The Court orders defendant to respond to the

interrogatories at issue within 14 days of the filing date of this order.2

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00717-SI Document 133 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2