Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03360/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03360-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

After meeting and conferring on this subject, plaintiff supplemented his interrogatory response

to include a more detailed description of Amtrak’s allegedly subjective disciplinary practices.

Following this supplemental answer, defendant filed the instant motion to strike.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C. FADHEEM R. HARDEMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMTRAK/CALTRAIN RAILROAD,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-03360 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter. Defendant Amtrak Railroad seeks

to have a portion of plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 8 stricken. For the following reasons, the

Court GRANTS defendant’s motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 8 is a contention interrogatory, which reads: “State all facts on

which YOU base YOUR contention that you were discriminated against by AMTRAK.” Plaintiff’s

answer to this interrogatory spanned several pages, and in one paragraph it stated: 

In my experience at Amtrak, as I testified in my deposition, Amtrak’s disciplinary

practices were subjective, where the severity of discipline hinged on the identity of the

employee in question. I hereby incorporate my deposition testimony on this issue as if

fully set forth herein.

Defendant moves to strike this reference, claiming that a party may not incorporate by reference

deposition testimony into an interrogatory response.1

Case 3:04-cv-03360-SI Document 112 Filed 07/19/06 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories. It provides for a single instance in

which a party may refer to outside material in lieu of answering the interrogatory:

Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business

records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served . . . and the burden of

deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the

interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to

specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford

to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect

such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries. . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). In circumstances that do not involve “business records” federal courts have

generally refused to allow parties to answer interrogatories by referring to outside material. See, e.g.,

Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682 (D. Kan. 1991); Scaife v.

Boenne, 191 F.R.D. 590 (N.D. Ind. 2000). These courts have relied on Rule 33's mandate that “each

interrogatory . . . be answered separately and fully in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Where, as here,

a party serves a contention interrogatory with the goal of fully understanding the basis for the opposing

party’s case, the Court believes it is especially important that the interrogatory response be clear an

complete.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike. To the extent plaintiff intends

to rely on material in his deposition that is not included in his supplemental response, plaintiff must

supplement his response accordingly.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s

motion to strike. (Docket Nos. 72, 103).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03360-SI Document 112 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2