Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00177/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00177-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE MITCHELL COMPANY, INC., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 07-0177-KD-C

JOSEPH J. CAMPUS, III, et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on what remains of defendant Edsel F.

Matthews’ motion to compel plaintiff to adequately respond to his first set of

discovery requests (compare Doc. 131 with Doc. 146), Matthews’ brief on

counting interrogatory subparts (Doc. 147), and plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 161).

Having considered the substantive contents of these pleadings, and all other

pertinent portions of the file, this order is entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 28, 2008, Matthews served his first set of

interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission upon The

Mitchell Company. (Doc. 131, Exhibit A) The interrogatory portion of this

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 42
2

document reads, as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

Identify each person who has any personal knowledge or

information about, or who possesses or controls any data,

documents, evidence or other tangible items regarding, the

allegations of the complaint or Plaintiff’s claims; and for each

such person, state in detail all such facts, information, data,

documents, evidence, or tangible items.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Separately list each legal matter (transaction, case,

general advice, or other) as to which TMC claims it established

an attorney-client relationship with defendant Matthews at any

time; and for each such matter, state the date the relationship

was established, state TMC’s understanding or contention

concerning the scope or terms of the engagement, state the work

performed by defendant Matthews during the course of the

representation, and identify the date the representation ended.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

For each legal matter identified in the immediatelypreceding interrogatory, separately state the position of TMC as

to whether defendant Matthews failed to perform satisfactorily,

or made any omission in his performance of, any work that

TMC engaged defendant Matthews to perform during the course

of that representation; and for each such claimed failure to

perform, state specifically how defendant Matthews’

performance was unsatisfactory, and identify all employees,

representatives, or agents of TMC who have any personal

knowledge or who possess any documents relating to TMC’s

position that defendant Matthews failed to perform

satisfactorily.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 42
3

Please identify by date, payee, and amount, all checks

written or other payments made by TMC to defendant Matthews

or others for legal work on any legal matter identified in

response to Interrogatory No. 2.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

Separately list each legal matter (transaction, case general

advice or other), handled by Defendant Matthews for a person

or entity other than TMC, which TMC claims caused or resulted

in a conflict of interest for Defendant Matthews in performing

legal work for TMC.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

List all employees, agents, or representatives of TMC,

who had any communications (written or oral) with Defendant

Matthews at any time, and for each such individual, provide the

inclusive dates of his employment or other relationship with

TMC, list the position(s) held by each individual during that

time, and provide detailed job descriptions.

INTERROGATORY [NO.] 7

Separately state the date of, parties to, and substance of

each communication between an employee, agent, or

representative of TMC, identified in response to the preceding

interrogatory, and Defendant Matthews.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

In Paragraph 18 of TMC’s First Amended Complaint,

TMC alleges Defendant Matthews, while representing TMC in

various transactions was “[s]imultaneously . . . representing the

Conspirators, Campus and Young without disclosing to The

Mitchell Company that Defendant Matthews was in fact an

attorney, or an agent for those individuals and companies.”

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 3 of 42
4

(TMC’s First Amended Complaint, ¶ 18 [hereinafter

“Complaint”]). TMC further avers that this ‘simultaneous

representation’ “denied The Mitchell Company its right to

independent counsel, its ability to make informed decisions, the

benefit of the exercise of professional judgment by an impartial

attorney and counsel free from adverse interests and selfdealing.” (Compl., ¶ 18). With respect to these allegations,

please specifically identify the alleged “simultaneous

representations” and state, describe or list all facts, information,

knowledgeable witnesses, and documents relating to these

allegations. Include all alleged statements or representations

made by Defendant Matthews that relate to these allegations and

identify the substance of the alleged representation, the date and

place the alleged representation was made, and all documents

containing or relating to such alleged representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

In Paragraph 26 of TMC’s Complaint, TMC alleges

Defendant Matthews “knowingly and/or willfully and/or

recklessly misrepresented [to TMC that] . . . the purchase price

of the properties at issue was the lowest and best price available;

[Defendant Matthews was] acting in [TMC’s] best interest; . . .

the properties had not been marked up in order to favor

[Matthews, Campus, and Young]; . . . Matthews had no conflict

of interest with regard to Plaintiff; . . . the properties were being

recommended to Plaintiff because purchase was in Plaintiff’s

best interest . . . ” (Compl., ¶ 26). TMC also contends that

Defendant Matthews “failed to provide an accurate picture of

the properties and financing in question.” (Id.). With respect to

these allegations, please specifically identify each property as to

which TMC alleges Matthews made the alleged

misrepresentation, and state, describe or list all facts,

information, knowledgeable witnesses, and documents relating

to these allegations. Include all alleged statements or

representations made by Defendant Matthews that relate to these

allegations and identify the substance of the alleged

representation, the date and place the alleged representation was

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 4 of 42
5

made, and all documents containing or relating to such alleged

representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10

In Paragraph 27 of TMC’s Complaint, TMC alleges

Defendant Matthews “knowingly and/or willfully and/or

recklessly suppressed . . . information necessary for the Plaintiff

to make a [sic] informed decision; . . . [and that Defendant

Matthews] failed to provide full disclosure and/or provided

inaccurate, misleading and untruthful information; . . . provided

false or misleading information with the intent to encourage the

Plaintiff to invest in the properties; . . . manipulated the affairs

of the corporation to the Plaintiff’s detriment[;] . . . utilized

information and their strategic position for their own

preferment; . . . [and] engaged in the dissemination of false

information and/or the concealment of material information

from Plaintiff.” (Compl., ¶ 27). TMC contends Defendants

Campus, Young, and Matthews “implemented a scheme, course,

and conspiracy of fraudulent acts in order to deceive Plaintiff

[and that s]uch actions constitute an ongoing pattern and

practice of fraud.” (Compl., ¶ 28). With respect to these

allegations, please specifically identify all information Matthews

allegedly suppressed and state, describe or list all facts,

information, knowledgeable witnesses, and documents relating

to these allegations. Include all alleged statements or

representations made by Defendant Matthews that relate to these

allegations and identify the substance of the alleged

representation, the date and place the alleged representation was

made, and all documents containing or relating to such alleged

representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11

In Paragraph 58 of TMC’s Complaint, TMC alleges that

Defendant Matthews “acted in concert [with Campus and

Young], in order to accomplish a variety of illegal schemes,

including but not limited to, multiple improper, illicit and illegal

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 5 of 42
6

transactions, the overall scheme of which was recommending

properties for purchase by The Mitchell Company which were

overvalued to Plaintiff’s detriment and hiding the true nature of

the transactions in question.” (Compl., ¶ 58). With respect to

these allegations, please specifically identify each “illegal

scheme[]” or “illicit and illegal transaction[]” and state, describe

or list all facts, information, knowledgeable witnesses, and

documents relating to these allegations. Include all alleged

statements or representations made by Defendant Matthews that

relate to these allegations and identify the substance of the

alleged representation, the date and place the alleged

representation was made, and all documents containing or

relating to such alleged representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12

In Paragraph 72 of TMC’s Complaint, TMC alleges that

Defendant Matthews, while acting “at all times relevant to the

matters contained herein [as] counsel for The Mitchell Company

in the various transactions complained of . . . he negligently

failed to disclose his prior relationships with Defendants

Campus, Young, and the entities controlled and owned by them;

. . . he negligently failed to disclose his actual participation with

Defendant[s] Campus, Young and the entities controlled and

owned by them; . . . he negligently failed to render independent

and honest advice to The Mitchell Company; . . . he negligently

deprived The Mitchell Company of the benefit of the exercise of

professional judgment by an impartial attorney and counsel free

from adverse interests and self-dealing; . . . he negligently

participated and facilitated the actions of Defendants Campus,

Young and the entities they controlled to the detriment of The

Mitchell Company.” (Compl., ¶ 72). TMC avers that “Matthews

knowingly participated in the commission of the above alleged

actions in violation of the standard of care applicable to him as

counsel for The Mitchell Company under the laws of the State

of Florida.” (Compl., ¶ 73). With respect to these allegations,

please specifically identify each alleged act of negligence or

failure to meet the standard of care, and state, describe or list all

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 6 of 42
7

facts, information, knowledgeable witnesses, and documents

relating to these allegations. Include all alleged statements or

representations made by Defendant Matthews that relate to these

allegations and identify the substance of the alleged

representation, the date and place the alleged representation was

made, and all documents containing or relating to such alleged

representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13

In its Complaint, TMC further alleges that Defendant

Matthews breached fiduciary duties owed to TMC and

negligently and wantonly failed to exercise reasonable care not

to injure or damage TMC. With respect to these allegations,

please specifically identify each occasion that Matthews

allegedly breached a fiduciary duty, and state, describe or list all

facts, information, engagements, knowledgeable witnesses, and

documents relating to these allegations. Include all alleged

statements or representations made by Defendant Matthews that

relate to these allegations and identify the substance of the

alleged representation, the date and place the alleged

representation was made, and all documents containing or

relating to such alleged representations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14

Separately list each and every allegedly misleading or

false statement or misrepresentation that Plaintiff claims

Matthews made at any time relating to Plaintiff’s claims and

allegations, and, for each, further state the date of the alleged

misrepresentation, identify any and all witnesses with personal

knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation, describe in detail

the substance of the alleged misrepresentation, and identify all

documents containing or relating to each alleged

misrepresentation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 7 of 42
8

Separately list each and every material fact that Plaintiff

claims Defendant Matthews allegedly suppressed, and, for each,

identify any and all witnesses with knowledge of the

suppression, describe in detail the substance of the alleged

suppression, and identify all documents containing or relating to

each alleged suppression.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

For each real estate transaction listed in the Complaint or

as to which TMC claims any improper conduct by Defendant

Matthews, separately describe in detail the site location, due

diligence, and decision-making process that TMC undertook

before TMC purchased the properties, including a description of

how Plaintiff learned of the properties, any and all discussions

between or among TMC’s employees, agents, and board

members concerning TMC’s purchase of the properties, any and

all board meetings concerning TMC’s purchase of the

properties, any and all negotiations with third parties concerning

purchase of the properties, any and all appraisals, market

surveys, valuations, and other similar documents or information

available to TMC concerning each property, and all due

diligence performed by TMC concerning each property. For

each transaction, separately identify the TMC agents,

employees, officers or directors personally involved in the

recommendation of the purchase to TMC, the negotiation of

TMC’s purchase of the property with the seller, or any other

aspect of TMC’s purchase of the property.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17

Please identify each and every expert witness whom

TMC expects to call at the time of trial by providing such

expert’s name, address, and occupation; place of employment;

qualifications to give an opinion, including a list of all

publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten

(10) years (or if such information is available on the expert’s

curriculum vitae, such curriculum vitae may be attached

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 8 of 42
9

instead); all opinions to be expressed in this case and the basis

and reasons therefor; the data or information considered by the

witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a

summary of or support for the opinions; the compensation to be

paid for the study and testimony; and, a listing of any other

cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by

deposition within the preceding four (4) years.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18

Please separately identify, state, or describe any and all

documents, information, statements and/or representations TMC

and its attorneys have provided to any expert witness identified

in the answer to the immediately preceding interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19

Please separately identify any and all documents,

information, statements, and/or representations TMC and its

attorneys have received from any potential expert witness

identified in response to Interrogatory No. 17.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20

Specify separately by type and amount each and every

item of injury or damage for which TMC does or may seek

compensation or other recovery in this action, state specifically

all dollar amounts claimed for each item of injury or damage,

and describe the method by which TMC has computed the dollar

amount as to each such item of injury or damage.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21

For each property identified in the Complaint, please

identify:

(a) When TMC first became aware that the property

was for sale; 

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 9 of 42
10

(b) Every action taken by TMC to assess the fair

market value of the property;

(c) Every action taken by TMC to assess the

developmental potential of the property;

(d) Every person, agent, or appraiser involved in such

actions; 

(e) Every action taken to develop or sell the property

since TMC acquired the property; and

(f) Every cost associated with such development or

sale.

INTERROGATORY NO. 22

Please identify each office[r], director, agent or employee

of TMC who has any education, skill, training, experience, or

knowledge concerning real estate valuation, investment or

development; and for each such person, state and describe his or

her education (including any degrees or certifications), training,

experience, and knowledge.

INTERROGATORY NO. 23

Please identify all real estate owed, bought, sold,

developed and/or managed by TMC in the Florida Panhandle or

Baldwin or Mobile Counties, Alabama, since 1997; and for each

property, state or describe the date TMC acquired or otherwise

first conducted any activity concerning the property, the

purchase or sale price, the nature of TMC’s activity concerning

the property (e.g. development into a subdivision), and the

current status of TMC’s ownership or other activity regarding

the property.

INTERROGATORY NO. 24

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 10 of 42
11

To the extent TMC denies in whole or [in] part any of the

Requests for Admission herein, please state, describe and/or

identify all facts, information, knowledgeable witnesses, and

documents on which TMC relies in denying a request for

admission.

(Id. at 5-15 (emphasis in original)) 

2. Plaintiff served its responses to the foregoing interrogatories on

March 10, 2008. (See Doc. 131, Exhibit C) Plaintiff substantively responded

or objected to interrogatories 1 through 10 but refused to answer

interrogatories 11 through 24 on the basis that they exceeded “the permissible

amount allowed in this case.” (Id. at 9 (emphasis in original)) In response to

Interrogatory No. 2, plaintiff stated the following: “Objection is made to this

Interrogatory and its 5 subparts on the grounds that the information

sought is equally available to the defendant Matthews in that he, as TMC

counsel presently knows or has access to the legal matters he has handled

for the company.” (Id. at 3-4; see also id. at 3 (“The Plaintiff objects to the

last subpart of Interrogatory Number 1 as it is overly broad, unduly

burdensome and places upon the plaintiff an impossible burden to identify

all facts, information, data, documents, evidence, or tangible items within

the possession and knowledge of each of the foregoing witnesses.”); id. at

7 (“The remaining subparts of this interrogatory [8] are objected to as

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 11 of 42
1 The Rule 16(b) scheduling order entered in this case on May 31, 2007,

specifically limits each party to service on any other party of no “more than 25 interrogatories,

including all discrete subparts[.]” (Doc. 13, ¶ 10.a.)

12

they are overly broad and are not limited in time or scope and to answer

would require the Plaintiff to outline any and all conversations and dates

relating in any way to the allegations in the complaint which is improper

and overly broad.”))

3. On April 21, 2008, defendant Matthews filed his motion to

compel plaintiff to adequately respond to his first set of discovery requests.

(Doc. 131) The Court entertained the parties’ oral arguments on May 15, 2008.

(See Doc. 146, at 2) After the hearing, the Court entered a discovery order in

which the parties were given the following instructions with regard to

interrogatories 11 through 24:

The Mitchell Company has responded to the first ten

interrogatories but, pursuant to their count, their responses to the

first ten interrogatories and the discrete subparts contained

therein equal or exceed the twenty-five interrogatory limit.1

Matthews spoke to this argument briefly in his motion to

compel at pages 5-6 but does not provide a clue as to his

counting analysis. His general citation to Rule 33(a) and the

1993 Advisory Committee Notes does not provide an adequate

basis for the Court to determine that TMC’s count of the total

number of interrogatories is flawed.

It is clear from looking at the interrogatories that were

attached to the motion to compel that they contain explicit or

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 12 of 42
13

implicit subparts. Since this question of deciding the true

number of interrogatories that should be counted against the

limit on interrogatories is one of first impression in the

undersigned’s experience and since the parties have not

referenced any decisions on this issue by the judges of this

Court, before adopting an analysis standard and applying that

standard to the interrogatories at issue, it is preferred that

Matthews submit an additional brief. Therein he should discuss

the applicable standard(s) to be employed and his interpretation

of when his set of 24 numbered interrogatories actually reached

the limit.

Accordingly, a ruling on that portion of the motion to

compel answers to interrogatories 11-24 is DEFERRED

PENDING THE FILING OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

by Matthews. The additional brief shall contain, at a minimum,

an analysis as to whether interrogatories 1-10 contain discrete

subparts that when counted as separate interrogatories equal or

exceed the limit of twenty-five. If Matthews determines that

interrogatories 1-10 do not exceed the limit, he shall also

provide his analysis as to when the limit is reached. Matthews

shall complete his count and file a supplemental motion not later

than the close of business on May 23, 2008.

(Doc. 146, at 3-4 (emphasis in original; footnote added))

4. Matthews filed his brief on counting subparts on May 21, 2008.

(Doc. 147) Therein, he generally makes the following argument:

The standard used by District Courts within the Eleventh

Circuit in counting subparts to interrogatories is the “related

question” test, which states that subparts that are factually and

logically related to an necessarily subsumed within the primary

question are inclusive and should not be counted as separate

interrogatories. Matthews hereby voluntarily withdraws all

subparts requesting a separate identification of documents. The

remaining subparts to Interrogatory [] Nos. 1-24 constitute a

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 13 of 42
14

total of twenty-five (25) interrogatories and therefore do not

exceed the permissible limit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a) or this

Court’s Scheduling Order. Matthews requests this Court compel

Plaintiff to fully respond to INT Nos. 11-24.

(Id. at 1) More specifically, Matthews makes the following arguments:

Plaintiff has improperly counted INT No. 1 as two

interrogatories. However, this is a standard interrogatory

concerning persons with knowledge and a subpart requesting a

short summary of the knowledge and information these persons

possess. Such an interrogatory is critical to elicit facts and

narrow issues for trial. Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2. In

Candela, the Northern District of Florida found a similar

interrogatory, which asked for “persons with documentary

evidence in their possession, custody or control, what they

ha[d], where [it was], and when it was prepared,” counted as one

single interrogatory. Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *2. The

Candela court also found a “standard question about persons

with knowledge and the subject area of their knowledge”

counted as one interrogatory. Id. INT No. 1 should be counted

as one interrogatory under the same analysis as in Candela.

...

The question [Interrogatory No. 2] contains four related

subparts: (1) the date the relationship began; (2) TMC’s

understanding of the scope of the relationship; (3) the work

performed by Matthews during the relationship; and (4) the date

the relationship ended, that are all factually and logically

subsumed within the primary question. Williams, 2007 WL

1630875, *2. Each subpart requests information relating to the

relationships identified by Plaintiff in response to the

interrogatory and is, therefore, “directed at eliciting details

concerning a common theme.” Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile

Group, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 616, 620 (D. Kansas 2005).

Also, the fact that this interrogatory seeks information

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 14 of 42
15

about multiple attorney-client relationships does not mean it

should be counted as separate interrogatories. See Cardenas,

231 F.R.D. at 620 (finding “the fact that [the interrogatory]

seeks information about multiple alleged design defects does not

turn it into multiple interrogatories.”). The subparts of this

interrogatory meet the related question test and are inclusive.

INT No. 2 should be counted as one interrogatory.

Plaintiff has improperly counted each of the subparts of

INT No. 2 as five separate interrogatories. . . . Plaintiff’s

counting of the subparts requesting the date each relationship

began and the date each relationship ended is particularly

restrictive of Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Subparts such as these fall

squarely within the Advisory Committee’s Notes to the 1993

amendment to Rule 33 which was intended to clarify the

numerical limitation on interrogatories. . . .

The other two subparts regarding TMC’s understanding

of the scope of each relationship and the work Matthews

performed as a result of each relationship are “simply designed

to obtain additional details concerning the general theme

presented in the primary interrogatory question” and are

therefore subsumed within the primary request. Manship v. U.S.,

232 F.R.D. 552, 556 (M.D. La. 2005). See also ULLICO III,

2006 WL 23998745, * 4 (finding the subparts of an

interrogatory requesting the factual basis for a specific claim in

the Counterclaim regarding impairment of an Auxiliary Plan, as

well as (1) describing unfunded liabilities of the Plan and (2) the

Plan’s failure to provide benefits, to be logically interrelated and

counting only as one interrogatory).

...

Plaintiff incorrectly counts INT No. 3 as three separate

interrogatories. However, these subparts are all factually related.

For each legal matter listed in response to INT No. 2, Plaintiff

is requested to state (1) whether Matthews failed to satisfactorily

perform, (2) if so, how, and (3) identify TMC employees with

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 15 of 42
16

knowledge of documents that relate to TMC’s position. These

requests are all logically connected and intended to elicit

specific details concerning one common theme: TMC’s

allegation that Matthews performed unsatisfactory work for

TMC. These subparts are, therefore, inclusive and should not be

counted separately. Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2; Ryan,

2005 WL 662724, *1.

Further, the request for identification of knowledgeable

persons is equivalent to the Advisory Committee’s example of

an inclusive subpart that requests the identification of persons

present for certain communications. See Theobles, 247 F.R.D.

at 485 (finding a subpart which requests identification of

persons with knowledge falls within the categories of “‘time,

place, persons present and contents,’ which, according to the

advisory committee, are subparts of a single interrogatory.”). .

. . For these reasons, INT No. 3 should be counted as one

interrogatory.

...

Plaintiff improperly counted INT No. 6 as three separate

interrogatories. This interrogatory contains one primary

question: identification of employees who had communication

with Matthews, and three related subparts: (1) the dates of

employment; (2) positions held; and (3) job descriptions. These

subparts are logically related and subsumed within the primary

question. Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2. INT No. 6 should

be counted as one interrogatory.

In Candela, the Northern District of Florida addressed an

almost identical interrogatory which requested “information

about every employee of Plaintiff who has quit, been fired, or

resigned since 2000, with their addresses, and the date they

terminated their employment.” Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *2.

The court found these subparts to be “related and connected

questions” that should not be counted as separate interrogatories.

See id. Under this analysis, INT No. 6, which requests the

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 16 of 42
17

identity of employees, as well as (1) the date of their

employment, (2) positions held and (3) job descriptions, should

also only be counted as one interrogatory. See also ULLICO II,

2006 WL 2398744, *3 (finding an interrogatory that requested

an identification of persons as well as a “description of such

persons’ job titles, responsibilities and total compensation over

the past two years . . . [to be] part of a single line of inquiry,

even though several pieces of information are sought.”);

ULLICO I, 2006 WL 2398742, *4 (same).

...

INT Nos. [8]-13 are similar contention interrogatories

which follow the same format by citing allegations of Plaintiff’s

Complaint, requesting substantive information relating to

allegations and seeking the same corollary information:

supporting facts, persons with knowledge and the time, place

and substance of any alleged representations. [] INT Nos. 9-13

address Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Matthews made

false statements, misrepresentations (INT No. 9) and omissions

(INT No. 10), participated in illegal schemes (INT No. 11),

committed acts of professional negligence (INT No. 12) and

breached his fiduciary duties (INT No. 13). [] INT Nos. 8-13 are

exactly the type of interrogatories which are designed to narrow

the factual issues for deposition and trial and ensure all parties

possess the relevant facts. Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2. []

Restricting Matthews’ ability to elicit specific facts, persons and

documents in support of Plaintiff’s claims would “unnecessarily

limit [his] fact-gathering ability.” []

...

In addition, the fact that these interrogatories request

information relating to multiple alleged simultaneous

representations, statements, omissions, illegal schemes, acts of

professional negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty does not

mean they should be counted as separate interrogatories. This

“analysis for counting subparts is substantially flawed because

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 17 of 42
18

it is based on an analysis of the number of responses that the

interrogatory elicits.” ULLICO III, 2006 WL 2398745, *2. The

proper test for determining whether subparts are discrete is to

ask whether they are factually related to the primary question,

not whether they elicit numerous responses. See also Candela,

2008 WL 217119, *3 (finding an interrogatory that asked what

each of thirty (30) individuals did to interfere with the business

relationship at issue to be “sufficiently related” so as to count

only as one interrogatory).

...

In ULLICO II, the court found a request for details relating to an

allegation of the complaint concerning corporate waste which

linked two corporate entities together did not count as two

interrogatories simply because the defendant had linked these

two corporate entities together in its request. See [id.] . . ., *4.

Thus, where Plaintiff has linked multiple instances of alleged

simultaneous representation[s], misrepresentations, omissions,

or conduct into a single cause of action against Matthews,

Matthews is entitled to similarly link these multiple instances of

allegedly actionable conduct in his requests for information

relating to these allegations. Id.

Each of these contention interrogatories is related to one

common theme: the allegations asserted by Plaintiff in each of

its separate claims or counts against Defendant Matthews. An

overly restrictive reading of Rule 33(a) in counting the subparts

to these interrogatories would unnecessarily limit Matthews’

anility to gather facts relating to Plaintiff’s claims and narrow

the issues for trial. Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2. INT Nos.

8-13 should be counted as six separate interrogatories.

...

The subparts to INT Nos. 14 and 15 are all factually related and

intended to elicit details concerning a common theme: Plaintiff’s

allegation that Matthews made false statements and/or

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 18 of 42
19

omissions. [] Further, most of these subparts fall directly within

the example provided in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule

33, which explains that subparts seeking information relating to

communications such as the time, place, persons present and

substance of the communications do not count as separate

interrogatories. [] INT Nos. 14 and 15 follow[] this format in

requesting the date, witnesses with personal knowledge and

substance of alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The Middle District of Louisiana addressed a similar

interrogatory in Manship which requested information about

certain communications as well as the substance, dates, places

and identifications of persons who participated in the

communications. Manship, 232 F.R.D. at 556. The court found

this interrogatory requested “the content, time, place and

persons participating in such communications, information

which is logically and factually subsumed within and

necessarily related to the primary interrogatory question.” Id.

For this reason, the court in Manship did not count these

subparts as separate interrogatories. See [i]d. . . . INT Nos. 14

and 15 contain the same inclusive subparts and therefore fall

within the example provided by the Advisory Committee. INT

Nos. 14 and 15 should, therefore, be counted as two

interrogatories.

...

INT No. 16 should be counted as two separate

interrogatories. The primary question of the first interrogatory

asks for information relating to TMC’s due diligence and

decision making process for purchasing the properties at issue.

The related subparts of this question ask how TMC learned of

the properties, discussions between agents and board members

concerning the properties, board meetings dealing with the

purchase of the properties, and the identity of the TMC agents

or employees who recommended the purchase to TMC. These

merely ask for the “‘who, what, when, where and how’

information which relates to the common theme presented in the

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 19 of 42
20

request . . .” Manship, 232 F.R.D. at 556. These subparts are

logically and factually subsumed within the primary question.

Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2; Candela, 2008 WL 21711, *1.

Further, this interrogatory should not be counted as six

separate interrogatories merely because it seeks information

relating to six separate properties listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Such a calculation would be “substantially flawed because it is

based on an analysis of the number of responses that the

interrogatory elicits.” ULLICO III, 2006 WL 2398745, *2. See

also Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *3 (finding an interrogatory

asking for information on each of 30 individuals to be

“sufficiently related” so as to count only as one interrogatory).

Also, Plaintiff linked these properties together in its Complaint

in order to form the basis for each of its causes of actions against

Matthews. (Complaint, ¶ 13). Therefore, Matthews is entitled to

link these properties together in his requests to Plaintiff in order

to elicit facts relating to the claims and defenses at issue.

Cardenas, 231 F.R.D. at 620; ULLICO II, 2006 WL 2398744,

*4. 

The second aspect of this interrogatory asks about

negotiations between TMC and third parties concerning TMC’s

purchase of the properties at issue. The related subpart of this

interrogatory asks for the identity of TMC agents or employees

involved in the negotiations with third parties. The request for

the identification of persons knowledgeable about the primary

request is not considered a separate interrogatory. Theobles, 247

F.R.D. at 485. Thus, INT No. 16 should be counted as two

interrogatories.

...

INT No. 17 is a standard request asking for information

about the responding party’s retained expert(s). In Candela, the

court addressed a similar interrogatory which asked for “the

expert witnesses Plaintiff intend[ed] to call at trial and then

ask[ed] related and connected questions such as their addresses,

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 20 of 42
21

qualifications, subject matter of their testimony, and grounds for

their opinions.” Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *2. The court found

the subparts of this interrogatory to be factually and logically

related to the primary question and therefore counted the request

as one interrogatory. Id. INT No. 17 should be counted as one

interrogatory under the same analysis. 

...

INT No[s]. 18 and 19 do not contain subparts. These

interrogatories merely ask for the identity and description of

certain documents and information. INT Nos. 18 and 19 should

be counted as only two interrogatories.

...

Int No. 20 should be counted as one interrogatory. The

primary question is a standard interrogatory directed at

Plaintiff’s claim for damages. The related subparts ask Plaintiff

to specifically state dollar amounts and the method for

computation. The court in Candela addressed a similar

interrogatory which requested a “list of damages, and includ[ed]

the related and connected questions of when the damage

occurred, to whom damages or expenses were paid, and for

what.” Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *2. The court found the

subparts of this interrogatory to be factually subsumed within

the primary interrogatory and that they should not, therefore, be

counted as discrete subparts. [] Under this analysis, INT No. 20

should also be counted as one interrogatory.

...

INT No. 21 should be counted as one interrogatory. The

primary question seeks information relating to TMC’s

assessment of the developmental potential and development of

the properties at issue. The subparts of this request ask for the

time frame of these actions (when TMC first became aware that

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 21 of 42
22

the property was for sale), the actions taken, the persons

involved in these actions, and the costs associated therewith.

These subparts are all directed at eliciting details concerning a

common theme: TMC’s assessment and development of the

properties at issue and are, therefore, all inclusive. See Ryan,

2005 WL 662724, *1. Also, the fact that this request seeks

information relating to six separate properties does not mean it

should be counted as six separate interrogatories. See ULLICO

III, 2006 WL 2398745, *2; Cardenas, 231 F.R.D. at 620;

ULLICO II, 2006 WL 2398744, *4. INT No. 21 should be

counted as one interrogatory. 

...

INT No. 22 should be counted as one interrogatory. The

primary question of INT No. 22 asks Plaintiff to identify certain

TMC employees or agents, and the related subpart requests that

Plaintiff list the education, training, experience or knowledge of

the TMC employees or agents identified in response to the

request. This subpart is logically and factually subsumed within

the primary question and should, therefore, not be counted as a

separate interrogatory. See Williams, 2007 WL 1630875, *2;

Candela, 2008 WL 217119, *1. INT No. 22 counts as one

interrogatory.

...

INT No. 23 should be counted as one interrogatory. This

request seeks information relating to TMC’s

ownership/management of properties in a particular area during

a particular time. Ths subparts to this question seek the “who,

what, when, where and how” information which is logically and

factually subsumed within the primary question. Manship, 232

F.R.D. at 556. The subparts ask for the date of purchase of the

property, the sale price, the nature of TMC’s use of the property,

and the current status of ownership or other activity. These are

all directed at eliciting details central to the common theme of

the primary question and should not be counted as separate

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 22 of 42
23

interrogatories. Ryan, 2005 WL 662724, *1. INT No. 23

constitutes one single interrogatory.

...

Plaintiff has already responded to Matthews’ First Set of

Requests for Admissions, and Plaintiff only denied a portion of

Request for Admission No. 2. . . . Thus, Plaintiff’s duties in

responding to this interrogatory will only require Plaintiff to

provide facts, information and knowledgeable witnesses which

support its denial of one Request for Admission. INT No. 24

should[,] therefore, only be counted as one interrogatory.

In addition, Plaintiff propounded an almost identical

interrogatory to Matthews in its first set of discovery requests to

Matthews. Matthews, however, fully responded to Plaintiff’s

interrogatory despite his denial of all twenty (20) of Plaintiff’s

Requests for Admissions to Matthews. []

...

[I]n case the Court finds INT Nos. 1-24, and their

subparts, count as more than twenty-five (25) interrogatories,

Matthews is willing to withdraw the following interrogatories,

in the following order:

1. INT No. 18

2. INT No. 19

3. INT No. 14

4. INT No. 15

For example, if the Court finds INT Nos. 1-24 count as

26 interrogatories total, Matthews requests the Court omit INT

No. 18 and compel Plaintiff to respond to INT Nos. 11-17 and

19-24. Or, if the Court finds INT Nos. 1-24 count as 27

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 23 of 42
2 With respect to this particular issue, plaintiff’s brief in opposition to Matthews’

motion to compel (Doc. 143) reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Matthews’s interrogatories 1-10 should be counted as at least 25

interrogatories because they include discrete subparts that should be counted

separately. For example, Matthews’s interrogatory 8 asks Mitchell to identify

instances of “simultaneous representation” by Matthews of Mitchell and other

parties, to identify “knowledgeable witnesses . . . relating to these allegations,”

and also to “identify . . . all documents containing or relating to such alleged

representation.” Interrogatory 8 should be counted as at least three interrogatories

(and can actually be counted as more than that since there were multiple instances

of simultaneous representation and Matthews asks for information about each

instance). As another example, interrogatory 9 asks Mitchell to provide

substantive information about five misrepresentations alleged in Mitchell’s

complaint, to also provide information about Mitchell’s allegation that Matthews

“failed to provide an accurate picture of the properties and financing in question,”

and to identify witnesses and documents relating to these allegations.

Interrogatory 9 should be counted as at least six interrogatories (that is, separately

as to the allegations of misrepresentation and the allegation of failure “to provide

an accurate picture of the properties and financing in question,” and separately as

to its requests for substantive information, witnesses, and documents about each

such allegation), and may be counted as containing as many as eighteen

24

interrogatories, Matthews requests the Court omit INT No. 19

and compel Plaintiff to respond to INT Nos. 11-17 and 20-24.

And so on, down the list.

(Doc. 147, at 7, 7-9, 9-10, 10-11, 12, 13, 13-14, 14-15, 16-17, 17, 18, 18-19,

19, 20, 20-21, 21 & 22 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted)) 

5. Plaintiff filed its reply brief on counting interrogatory subparts

on June 3, 2008, same reading, in relevant part, as follows:

Matthews’s interrogatories 1-10, including requests for

identification of documents, comprise at least 25 interrogatories

including discrete subparts. Authorities cited in Mitchell’s

previous brief (doc. 143) support Mitchell’s count.2

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 24 of 42
interrogatories (that is, separately as to each of the five misrepresentations

referenced and also as to the failure “to provide an accurate picture of the

properties and financing in question,” and separately as to its requests for

substantive information, witnesses, and documents pertaining to each of these

misrepresentations and the failure “to provide an accurate picture”). Similarly,

interrogatory 10 asks about several different types of misconduct alleged in the

complaint (i.e., suppression, providing false information, manipulating corporate

affairs, utilizing information and strategic position for Defendants’ own

preferment, and conspiracy) and seeks substantive information and identification

of witnesses and documents pertaining to such allegations. Interrogatory 10

should be counted as at least 15 interrogatories.

Because Matthews’s interrogatories 1-10 equal or exceed 25

interrogatories when each discrete subpart is counted separately, the Court should

deny Matthews’s motion to compel responses to the remainder of his

interrogatories.

(Id. at 3-4)

25

Matthews has now purportedly withdrawn the

approximately six requests for document identification included

in these interrogatories. At the time Mitchell objected, however,

those requests were included. The propriety of Mitchell’s

objection to Matthews’s excessive interrogatories must be

considered as of the date Mitchell objected, not after Matthews’s

purported withdrawal.

Matthews’s interrogatories, not including requests for

document identification and not considering whether subparts

are “discrete,” include a total of more than 100 subparts by

Mitchell’s count. This is the type of burden the rule limiting the

number of interrogatories was intended to alleviate. Matthews’s

method of counting, which considers virtually any question

bearing any relation, no matter how attenuated, to the “primary

question” as being “subsumed” within that question, would

swallow the rule and render it virtually meaningless. Under that

method, a party can simply make the “primary question” as

broad as possible and include an unlimited number of subparts

“related to” that question. [] [T]he Introduction to Civil

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 25 of 42
26

Discovery Practice in the Southern District of Alabama (1988)

states that “[c]ounsel shall not use subparts of interrogatories to

evade any limitation on the number of interrogatories set by the

Court in the Federal Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order.” Id. at Part

IV, ¶ A. 

Mitchell discussed Matthews’s interrogatories 8-10 in its

previous brief (doc. 143). Matthews’s interrogatory 16 is

another example of the flaws in Matthews’s counting method.

. . . Matthews says that because the subparts are supposedly

“related to” the “common theme[s]” of “TMC’s due diligence

and decision making process for purchasing the properties at

issue,” interrogatory 16 should be counted a[s] two

interrogatories.

Matthews cannot transform an interrogatory that includes

a number of discrete subparts into only two interrogatories

simply by referring broadly to “due diligence” and “decisionmaking process” at the beginning of the interrogatory. Since

there are six separate “real estate transactions listed in the

Complaint,” interrogatory 16 includes at least six

interrogatories. See In re ULLICO Litig., 2006 WL 2398744,

*2, 4 (D.D.C. June 30, 2006) (discussion of interrogatories 2 and

15). It also includes at least six discrete subparts as to each

transaction:

(1) Description of how Plaintiff learned

of the property,

(2) Discussions between or among

TMC’s employees, agents, and board members

concerning TMC’s purchase of the property,

(3) Board meetings concerning TMC’s

purchase of the property,

(4) Negotiations with third parties

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 26 of 42
27

concerning purchase of the property,

(5) Due diligence performed by TMC

concerning each property, and 

(6) Identification of TMC agents,

employees, officers, or directors personally

involved in recommendation of the purchase,

negotiation, or other aspects of the purchase.

Other of Matthews’s interrogatories that contain multiple

discrete subparts are interrogatories 2, 3, 6, 8-15, 17-19, 21, 23,

24, and possibly others.

Matthews asks the Court to compel Mitchell “to fully

respond to INT Nos. 11-24" (doc. 147 at 1, 22). If the Court

agrees with Matthews that one or more of these interrogatories

do not exceed the 25-interrogatory limit, the Court should not

compel Mitchell to “fully respond” to the interrogatory; it

should rule that while Mitchell must serve a response, it is free

to assert any other objections it may have to the interrogatory.

See In re ULLICO Litig., 2006 WL 2398744, *5 (D.D.C. June

30, 2006) (overruling party’s objection based on excessive

number of interrogatories and ordering that “[s]ubject to any

objections unrelated to the number of interrogatories, ULLICO

will provide its responses to [certain interrogatories] within [a

certain time frame]”) (emphasis added). To do otherwise would

unfairly penalize Mitchell for relying in good faith on the 25-

interrogatory limitation that the Court included in its Rule 16(b)

Scheduling Order.

(Doc. 161, at 1-4 (footnote added)) 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. As previously indicated, this Court’s Rule 16(b) scheduling

order, entered on May 31, 2007, limits each party to serving upon any other

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 27 of 42
28

part “[n]ot more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts[.]”

(Doc. 13, ¶10.a.) Moreover, Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court,

a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

including all discrete subparts.” 

2. While, as one court has indicated, “[t]he word, ‘discrete,’

essentially means, ‘separate[,]’” Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, Inc., 174

F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997), the majority of district courts to have

addressed the issue are in agreement that the process of “[i]dentifying a

‘discrete subpart’ has proven difficult.” Banks v. Office of the Senate Sergeantat-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7, 10 (D. D.C. 2004); see also Oliver v. City of Orlando,

2007 WL 3232227, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (“‘Resolving questions of whether a

subpart to an interrogatory is “discrete” under Rule 33 such that it should be

counted separately can be a difficult task’ and ‘courts considering this question

have applied various tests.’”); Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 1630875,

*2 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“Courts have recognized that resolving the question of

whether a subpart to an interrogatory is ‘discrete’ under Rule 33 such that it

should be counted separately can be a difficult task.”); Johnson v. Kraft Foods

North America, Inc., 2006 WL 3143930, *1 (D. Kan. 2006) (“Rule 33(a) does

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 28 of 42
29

not define the term ‘discrete subparts,’ and courts have struggled to interpret

the term’s meaning.”). 

3. District courts in the Eleventh Circuit, like most district courts

in other circuits, have adopted and applied “the ‘related question’ test to

determine whether the subparts are discrete, asking whether the particular

subparts are ‘logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to

the primary question.’” Forum Architects, LLC v. Candela, 2008 WL 217119,

*1 (N.D. Fla. 2008), citing Oliver v. City of Orlando, 2007 WL 3232227

(M.D. Fla. 2007) and Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2007 WL 1630875 (N.D.

Ga. 2007); see also Estate of Manship v. United States, 232 F.R.D. 552, 554-

555 (2005) (“[T]he issue in this motion is whether the interrogatory subparts

are ‘logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the

primary [interrogatory] question.’ . . . In making this determination, the Court

should decide whether the first question is primary and subsequent questions

are secondary to the primary question; or whether the subsequent question

could stand alone and is independent of the first question? . . . In other words,

‘[i]f the first question can be answered fully and completely without answering

the second question, then the second question is totally independent of the first

and not “factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 29 of 42
30

question”.’”), aff’d, 2006 WL 594521 (M.D. La. 2006); Kendall, supra, 174

F.R.D. at 685-686 (“Probably the best test of whether subsequent questions,

within a single interrogatory, are subsumed and related, is to examine whether

the first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the

primary question. Or, can the subsequent question stand alone? Is it

independent of the first question? Genuine subparts should not be counted as

separate interrogatories. However, discrete or separate questions should be

counted as separate interrogatories, notwithstanding they are joined by a

conjunctive word and may be related.”); see Theobles v. Industrial

Maintenance Co., 247 F.R.D. 483, 485 (D. V.I. 2006) (“‘[O]nce a subpart of

an interrogatory introduces a line of inquiry that is separate and distinct from

the inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that precedes it, the

subpart must be considered a separate interrogatory no matter how it is

designated.’”); In re ULLICO Inc. Litigation, 2006 WL 2398742, *2 (D. D.C.

2006) (“In analyzing whether a subpart is a separate question, the Court looks

to whether the subpart ‘introduces a line of inquiry that is separate and distinct

from the inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that precedes it.’ . .

. An interrogatory ‘directed at eliciting details concerning a common theme’

should not be counted as multiple interrogatories. . . . This Court has rejected

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 30 of 42
31

as unfair the ‘draconian approach of counting every subdivision of an

interrogatory as a separate question.’”). 

[T]he related question test is the better of the two. First, the

related question test is consistent with Rule 33's Advisory

Committee’s Notes. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 advisory committee

notes to 1993 Amendment (stating that “a question asking about

communications of a particular type should be treated as a single

interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place,

persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such

communication”). Second, while the Court recognizes that

answering interrogatories may be burdensome and that

propounding numerous interrogatories may be used as a tool for

harassment, it is of the view that an overly restrictive reading of

Rule 33's numerical limit would too quickly exhaust the

propounding party’s supply of interrogatories, and unnecessarily

limit that party’s fact-gathering ability. Such a result would be

not only inconsistent with both the broad discovery envisioned

by the Federal Rules, but also their purpose of narrowing the

factual issues to be resolved at trial and ensuring that all parties

to litigation are possessed of relevant facts.

Williams, supra, at *2 (case citations omitted). 

4. Having identified the general test which will guide the

undersigned’s counting of interrogatory subparts, the Magistrate Judge must

also acknowledge some more specific rules which have or will necessarily

impact that count. First, “a demand for information about a certain event and

for the documents about it should be counted as two separate interrogatories.”

Banks, supra, 222 F.R.D. at 10; see also id. (“The first and most obvious

example is the combining in a single interrogatory of a demand for information

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 31 of 42
32

and a demand for the documents that pertain to that event. Clearly, these are

two distinct demands because knowing an event occurred is entirely different

from learning about the documents that evidence it occurred.”). Moreover, in

IOSTAR Corp. v. Stuart, 2008 WL 1924209, *1 (D. Utah 2008), the court

recognized that “[i]nterrogatories which ask for ‘substantive information, a

separate identification of witnesses, and a separate identification of

documents’ are indeed compound, and have been held to have three discrete

subparts.” 

5. Prior to specifically addressing each interrogatory, the

undersigned notes that after the hearing on May 15, 2008, the moving party

redacted all demands for documents (or document identification) contained in

the interrogatories served upon the plaintiff. While plaintiff makes the

argument that this Court must view the interrogatories as initially served, it

cites to no authority for that proposition. Accordingly, this argument is rejected

and the undersigned will consider each of the twenty-four interrogatories

propounded by Matthews to the Mitchell Company in the redacted manner set

forth in the moving defendant’s brief on counting (Doc. 147). 

6. In light of the foregoing, the Court makes the following

determinations: 

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 32 of 42
33

(a) Interrogatory 1 is found to be but one interrogatory. The

primary question is directed to identifying any Mitchell Company person with

personal knowledge or information, etc., about plaintiff’s claims or allegations

in the complaint. The secondary question asks that for each person identified

in response to the primary question, the facts and information known by each

such person. The undersigned finds that facts and information specifically

known by a party and its employees are logically and factually subsumed

within the primary question asking for identification of individuals possessing

relevant facts and information about the complaint and the claims contained

therein;

(b) Interrogatory 2 is found to be but one interrogatory. The

primary question asks for a list of all legal matters plaintiff claims it

established an attorney-client relationship with Matthews. The undersigned

finds that the four remaining inquires about dates each relationship began and

ended, the scope of each relationship, and the work performed by the

defendant during the relationship are all logically and factually subsumed

within the primary inquiry about identifying each attorney-client relationship;

(c) Interrogatory 3 is found to be two interrogatories. First, the

interrogatory asks plaintiff to state, with respect to each legal matter identified

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 33 of 42
34

in response to Interrogatory 2, whether Matthews failed to perform

satisfactorily, or made any omission in his performance of work. The related

subpart contained in this interrogatory asks plaintiff to specifically state how

Matthews’ performance was unsatisfactory. The undersigned, however, cannot

find that Matthews’ request for the identification of all employees, etc. of

TMC with knowledge of, or who possess documents relating to, Matthews’

unsatisfactory performance is logically and factually subsumed in the

identification of such unsatisfactory performance. See Stuart, supra, at *1

(“Interrogatories which ask for ‘substantive information, a separate

identification of witnesses, and a separate identification of documents’ are

indeed compound, and have been held to have three discrete subparts.”). This

subpart can stand on its own;

(d) Interrogatory 4 is found to be but one interrogatory; plaintiff makes

no argument to the contrary;

(e) Interrogatory 5 is found to be one interrogatory, plaintiff, again,

making no argument to the contrary;

(f) Interrogatory 6 is found to be just one interrogatory. The primary

question requests identification of all employees, etc., of TMC who had any

written or oral communications with Matthews. The undersigned finds that the

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 34 of 42
35

three remaining inquires about dates each such identified employee’s

employment with plaintiff, the position(s) held by such individual, and job

descriptions for each identified individual are all logically and factually

subsumed within the primary inquiry about identifying each employee, etc.,

who communicated with Matthews. As is clear from plaintiff’s response, this

interrogatory does not request the “moon” and, therefore, providing the

information requested by this defendant would not prove overly burdensome;

(g) Interrogatory 7 is found to be one interrogatory; plaintiff makes no

argument to the contrary;

(h) Interrogatory 8, a contention interrogatory, is counted as two

interrogatories. While the primary focus is upon identification of all alleged

“simultaneous representations” and the undersigned agrees with Matthews that

a description of the facts, information, and knowledgeable witnesses to these

allegations of simultaneous representation are subsumed within the primary

question, the request for “all alleged statements or representations made by

Defendant Matthews that relate to these allegations” and the identification of

“the substance of the alleged representation, [and] the date and place the

alleged representation was made,” is quite a different matter, such that a

request for this information can stand on its own;

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 35 of 42
36

(i) Similarly, Interrogatory Nos. 9-13, five more contention

interrogatories, are counted as two interrogatories each based upon the

reasoning set forth with respect to Interrogatory No. 8;

(j) Interrogatory No. 14 is counted as one interrogatory. The primary

question asks for a list of every misleading or false statement made by

Matthews relating to plaintiff’s claims. The undersigned finds that the three

remaining inquires about dates of the alleged misrepresentations, the substance

of the alleged misrepresentations, and all witnesses with personal knowledge

of the alleged representations are all logically and factually subsumed within

the primary inquiry about identifying each misleading or false statement made

by Matthews;

(k) Interrogatory No. 15 is counted as one interrogatory based upon the

same reasoning as given for Interrogatory No. 14. With respect to this

interrogatory, the primary question asks for a list of every material fact

suppressed by Matthews. Again, the undersigned finds that the two remaining

inquires about the substance of the alleged suppressions and all witnesses with

knowledge of the alleged suppressions are logically and factually subsumed

within the primary inquiry about identifying each fact suppressed by

Matthews;

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 36 of 42
37

(l) Matthews concedes that Interrogatory No. 16 should be counted as

two interrogatories. The undersigned is of the opinion that this convoluted

interrogatory should be counted as three interrogatories. While defendant may

correctly argue that the primary question asks for information relating to

TMC’s due diligence and decision making process for purchasing the

properties at issue (Doc. 147, at 16), the undersigned finds that TMC’s due

diligence regarding these properties and the corporation’s decision making

process for purchasing the properties are improperly lumped together.

Certainly, a question about TMC’s due diligence could stand on its own

separate and apart from a question about TMC’s decision making process for

purchasing the properties. Because Matthews concedes that information about

negotiations between TMC and third parties concerning the plaintiff’s

purchase of the subject properties is a separate interrogatory, the undersigned

concludes that Interrogatory No. 16 should be counted as three interrogatories;

(m) Interrogatory No. 17 is counted as one interrogatory. The

primary question asks for plaintiff’s identification of its expert witnesses. The

undersigned finds that the remaining inquires about each expert’s address,

occupation, place of employment, qualifications, list of publications, opinions

to be expressed and the reasons therefor, all data and information considered

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 37 of 42
38

in forming opinions, exhibits to be used as support for the opinions,

compensation paid for study and testimony, and a list of other cases the

individual has appeared as an expert in the last four years, are all logically and

factually subsumed within the primary inquiry about identification of each of

plaintiff’s expert witnesses. See Candela, supra, at *2 (“No. 1 of the Second

Set . . . asks for the expert witnesses Plaintiff intends to call at trial and then

asks related and connected questions such as their addresses, qualifications,

subject matter of their testimony, and grounds for their opinions. Plaintiff’s

motion is clearly not well taken as to this interrogatory.”);

(n) Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 19 do not contain subparts; they are

counted as one interrogatory each;

(o) Interrogatory No. 20 is counted as one interrogatory. The primary

question asks for each item of damage or injury for which plaintiff seeks

compensation. The undersigned finds that the two remaining inquires

regarding the specific dollar amount for each item of damage or injury and the

methods for computation of same are all logically and factually subsumed

within the primary inquiry. See Candela, supra, at *2 (“No. 2 asks for a list of

damages, and includes the related and connected questions of when the

damage occurred, to whom damages or expenses were paid, and for what. The

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 38 of 42
39

motion is not well taken as to this interrogatory.”);

(p) Interrogatory No. 21 is counted as two interrogatories. While the

undersigned sees a connection between when TMC first became aware about

the availability for purchase of each piece of property identified in the

complaint and the actions taken by TMC to assess the fair market value of

each piece of property, as well as the identity of persons involved in such

actions, the Magistrate Judge is unable to discern a connection between actions

surrounding the purchase of the property with actions taken to actually develop

or sell the property. In other words, the inquiry about actions taken by plaintiff

to actually develop and sell the subject properties introduces a line of inquiry

separate and distinct from the inquiry about when TMC first became aware of

the availability of each piece of property and assessed the fair market value of

same;

(q) Interrogatory No. 22 is counted as one interrogatory. The primary

question asks for identification of any employee, etc., of TMC with any

education or experience in real estate valuation, investment or development.

The second portion simply asks for the specific education, experience or

training of each such person identified. As defendant correctly argues, this

subpart is logically and factually subsumed by the primary question; 

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 39 of 42
40

(r) Interrogatory No. 23 is counted as one interrogatory. The primary

question asks for plaintiff’s identification of real estate it has owned, bought,

etc., in Mobile and Baldwin Counties in Alabama and in the Florida Panhandle

since 1997. The undersigned finds that the four remaining inquires about date

of acquisition, purchase price, the nature of TMC’s activity concerning the

property, and its current status of ownership or other activity regarding the

properties, are all logically and factually subsumed within the primary inquiry

about the identification of each such piece of real estate;

(s) Interrogatory No. 24 is counted as one interrogatory since it seeks

all facts, information and knowledgeable witnesses on which TMC relies in

denying a portion of Request for Admission No. 2. (See Doc. 147, at 21 &

Exhibit A) Plaintiff has admitted all Request for Admissions save a portion of

Request for Admission No. 2. (See id.) Had plaintiff denied all requests for

admission, the undersigned necessarily would have determined that this

interrogatory should be counted as eight interrogatories. Compare id. with

Stuart, supra, at *1 (“The 25th interrogatory asks for the basis of denial of

each of Stuart’s 12 requests for admission. Another case has held that

‘[a]llowing service of an interrogatory which requests disclosure of all of the

information on which the denials of each of [the] requests for admissions were

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 40 of 42
3 If Matthews desires plaintiff to answer interrogatories other than the ones

identified by the Court, plaintiff is to allow Matthews to designate those interrogatories to which

a response is to be served. The interrogatories are to be counted as set forth in this order and

Matthews’ designation of interrogatories to which plaintiff is to serve a response shall not

exceed 13 additional interrogatories, for a total of 25. 

41

based . . . essentially transforms each request for admission into an

interrogatory.’”). Since the interrogatory is directed solely to plaintiff’s basis

of denial of that portion of Request for Admission No. 2 denied, it necessarily

constitutes only one interrogatory.

7. In light of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Matthews

served a total of 33 interrogatories upon plaintiff, thereby exceeding the limit

of 25 placed upon the parties in the Rule 16(b) scheduling order and by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33. In responding to the propounded interrogatories, plaintiff

stopped after answering Interrogatory No. 9, claiming those 9 interrogatories

actually amounted to at least 25 interrogatories. Based upon the undersigned’s

analysis, Interrogatories 1 through 9 constitute a total of 12 interrogatories.

Accordingly, Matthews’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories

(Doc. 131; see also Doc.147) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve Matthews with responses to

Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20, as these interrogatories total

13 additional interrogatories, on or before June 30, 2008.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 41 of 42
42

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Matthews’ motion to compel plaintiff to

adequately respond to propounded interrogatories (Doc. 131; see also Doc.

147) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specifically set

forth in the body of this order. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of June, 2008.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00177-KD-C Document 173 Filed 06/16/08 Page 42 of 42