Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02039/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02039-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHUONG DOAN and DOES 1-100,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

[DOC. NO. 218] AND STRIKING

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE [DOC. NO. 271]

On September 1, 2009, the Court issued an Order Granting

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories [doc. no.

255], finding that the six class representatives were to answer the

interrogatories and subparts without objection. (Order Granting

Def.’s Mot. Compel Depo. Testimony & Produc. Docs. 5.) The Court

requested supplemental briefing on the scope of responses from each

class representative. (Id.) Defendant was authorized to file a

supplemental brief, followed by a responsive brief from Plaintiffs,

and a final reply by Defendant. (Id.) Each filing was limited to

ten pages. 

On September 8, 2009, Defendant’s Supplemental Briefing

Regarding Scope of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Contention InterrogatoCase 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 1 of 8
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

 Because Defendant’s Supplemental Briefing Regarding Scope

of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Contention Interrogatories is not 

consecutively paginated, the Court will cite to it using the page

numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system.

2 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

ries was filed [doc. no. 258].1 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories was filed

on September 15, 2009 [doc. no. 266]. On September 18, 2009,

Defendant’s Reply to Supplemental Briefing Regarding Scope of

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Contention Interrogatories was filed [doc.

no. 270]. Plaintiffs filed a Surreply in the form of a Request for

Judicial Notice in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories on September 18, 2009 [doc. no. 271]. 

As an initial matter, Defendant’s Reply to Supplemental

Briefing Regarding Scope of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Contention

Interrogatories contains a five-page brief, a two-page Declaration

from Dianne Schweiner, and twenty-five pages of exhibits [doc. no.

270]. Because the Court permitted supplemental briefings limited

to ten pages each, including exhibits, the last twenty-two pages of

Defendant’s exhibits are stricken from the record. The Court did

not permit Plaintiffs to file a surreply, so the Court strikes from

the record Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice in Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories [doc. no.

271].

BACKGROUND

Defendant argues that “the named Plaintiffs are obligated to

disclose: (1) any facts within their personal knowledge regarding

the unnamed class members’ claims and (2) any information regarding

the unnamed class members’ claims that is known to class counsel

Alexandra Manbeck.” (Def.’s Supplemental Br. Regarding Scope Pls.’

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 2 of 8
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 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

Resp. Contention Interrogs. 1-2.) Defense counsel explains that

she does not expect each of the six named class represetnatives to

perform a class-wide investigation in order to respond to the

interrogatories, but she expects to receive responsive information

based on the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and information within class

counsel’s knowledge. (Id. at 3.) 

Defendant contends that if Plaintiffs have knowledge about any

of the unnamed class members’ claims, that information should be

disclosed because it is information “available” to them. (Id.) 

“If the named Plaintiffs do not personally possess such knowledge,

they are required to provide verified responses to that effect.” 

(Id.) 

Defendant asserts, “Once interrogatories have been directed to

a party, that party ‘is then required to give all information known

to it or its attorney.’” (Id. at 4 (quoting 8 Wright, Miller, &

Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2171 (2d ed. 2009) (emphasis omitted).) Defendant argues that even if the factual basis for

certain contentions comes solely from Plaintiffs’ counsel’s knowledge, that information is discoverable. (Id. at 4-5 (citing

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 504, 517 (1947); Ochotorena v.

Adams, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61852, No. 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB-PC,

*5 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2009); In re Dayco Corp. Deriv. Sec. Litig.,

99 F.R.D. 616, 623 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Penk v. Oregon State Bd. of

Higher Ed., 99 F.R.D. 511, 516-17 (D. Or. 1983).) 

Finally, Defendant claims the discovery is proper because

Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures provide information regarding

witnesses and documents, but not the facts or contentions which are

sought by the interrogatories. (Id. at 3.) 

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 3 of 8
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

4 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

Plaintiffs oppose the discovery by arguing that it is futile

and cumulative because “class counsel does not have any information

not known to defendant’s counsels.” (Pls.’ Reply Opp’n Def.’s Mot.

Compel Interrogs. 1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel claims that because she

has supplemented her initial disclosures listing additional witnesses, “there is no basis whatsoever to require plaintiffs’

counsel to disclose privileged information by interrogatories which

were purportedly directed at class representatives, none of whom

has any knowledge to be able to respond to the interrogatories.” 

(Id.) Counsel states that the interrogatories are, in effect, an

improper attempt to depose her. (Id.)

Plaintiffs counsel explains, “Any information [she has]

obtained about the absent class members [was] provided by the

defendant through a hard-copy file currently maintained by the

defendant’s counsel . . . .” (Id. at 2.) She asserts defense

counsel can find the information she seeks in those files, from the

unnamed class members themselves, or from their attorneys. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel further alleges, “Given that plaintiffs’

counsels do not have the complete administrative record of any

absent class members except for the representative class members,

(which defendant provided) the defendant’s claim that plaintiffs’

counsel could or should provide ‘information’ responsive to the

interrogatories is inaccurate.” (Id.) “If the defendant provides

plaintiffs’ counsels with [the files of the unnamed class

representatives], then plaintiffs’ counsels could analyze them and

ferret out any ‘facts’ responsive to defendant’s interrogatories.” 

(Id. at 3.) But she contends that it would take her a great amount

of time and effort to accomplish and suggests that defense counsel

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 4 of 8
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

5 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

can review the administrative records for each unnamed class member

and find facts responsive to the interrogatories. (Id.) She also

asks the Court to allow her not to respond to the interrogatories

because Defendant has accused her of making misrepresentations to

the Court. (Id.) 

Defendant does not desire to depose Plaintiffs’ counsel or

require her to produce documents in response to the interrogatories

but; rather, she seeks disclosure of “information already known to

Plaintiffs and information on which Plaintiffs intend to rely at

trial or in motions for summary judgment.” (Def.’s Reply Supp. Br.

Regarding Scope Pls.’ Responses Contention Interrogs. 1-3.) 

Defense counsel explains that she “cannot be expected to guess at

what facts Plaintiffs believe are relevant and support the contentions stated in their Complaint.” (Id. at 3.) Defendant argues

that if there are no facts supporting a contention in the Complaint, Plaintiffs “simply need to so state.” (Id. at 5.) But,

“to the extent any facts exist (even if only gleaned from Ms.

Manbeck’s personal conversations with individuals off the record),

they must be disclosed at this stage so that Defendant can properly

prepare for trial.” (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides, “An interrogatory

is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or

contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Thus, “a party may be required to

disclose opinion or contentions in its answers to interrogatories,

so long as they relate to facts.” 7 James Wm. Moore et al.,

Moore’s Federal Practice § 33.62[2], at 33-56 (3d ed. 2008) (“For

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 5 of 8
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

6 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

example, plaintiffs’ interrogatories requesting defendants to

identify each basis on which they claimed that a statement of the

plaintiffs constituted an admission did not seek undiscoverable

attorney work product even though the interrogatories sought

factual conclusions that ‘intruded on the thought process’ of the

parties’ attorney.”). 

“A party clearly cannot refuse to answer interrogatories on

the ground that the information sought is solely within the

knowledge of his attorney.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. at 504. 

“Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both

parties is essential to proper litigation.” Id. at 507. 

Interrogatories may seek factual information known to the party or

known to the party’s attorney. See In re Dayco Corp. Deriv. Sec.

Litig., 99 F.R.D. at 623-24; Penk v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher

Ed., 99 F.R.D. at 516-17 (holding that factual information conveyed

to an attorney by class members is not shielded from discovery by

the attorney-client privilege; such information is discoverable

from the class through interrogatories). Other authorities agree

that factual information is discoverable even when the information

was obtained through the attorney’s own investigation. 7 James Wm.

Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 33.62[3], at 33-57 (“The

work product doctrine does not protect relevant, objective, and

evidentiary facts, and the identity of persons with knowledge of

those facts, even if counsel became privy to those facts during

interviews or investigation in the course of the litigation.”) 

Here, the Court has already found that Plaintiffs must respond

to the interrogatories without objection. The question before the

Court is whether those responses may be limited to the class

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 6 of 8
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

7 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

representatives’ personal knowledge. The Court finds such a limit

is not appropriate. The facts underlying Plaintiffs’ contentions

are not work product, but even if they were, the attorney workproduct privilege is waived by introducing those facts into

evidence in opposition to a motion or at trial. Because the

interrogatories seek information regarding the factual basis for

Plaintiffs’ contentions, responses must include information known

to the class representatives and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs

counsel need not perform additional investigation in order to

respond to the interrogatories, but she must respond with any

information available to Plaintiffs or any factual or contention

information available to her. 

CONCLUSION

The only issue authorized for supplemental briefing, and

consequently, the only issue determined by this Order is the proper

scope of the interrogatory responses ordered on September 1, 2009.

The last twenty-two pages of exhibits to Defendant’s Reply to

Supplemental Briefing Regarding Scope of Plaintiffs’ Responses to

Contention Interrogatories [doc. no. 270] and Plaintiffs’ Request

for Judicial Notice in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel

Responses to Interrogatories [doc. no. 271] are stricken from the

record. 

The Court finds that responses to the interrogatories should

include any available information which incorporates anything

within the knowledge of the class representatives and any facts or

factual contentions within the knowledge of Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 7 of 8
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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\SOCSEC\DOAN2039\OrderReSuppBriefingInterrogs.wpd 8 04cv2039 DMS(RBB)

To the extent necessary to comply with this order, Plaintiffs may

supplement their responses by October 20, 2009. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2009 _____________________________

 Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Judge Sabraw

All Parties of Record

Case 3:04-cv-02039-DMS-RBB Document 289 Filed 10/06/09 Page 8 of 8