Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00232/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00232-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA S. KELLEY d/b/a

PKELLEY ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0232 RRB EFB 

vs.

CRATE & BARREL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

 /

This case was before the undersigned on February 27, 2008, for hearing on defendant

Crate & Barrel’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for

production of documents. Robert Milligan appeared as defense counsel and Scott Burroughs

appeared as plaintiff’s counsel. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, defendant’s

motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

Specifically, plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified responses to interrogatories

nos. 14, 16, and 18 within fifteen days. Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections, unsupported by a

privilege log, are insufficient for purposes of Rules 33 and 26. However, defendant’s motion to

compel further a response to interrogatory no. 3 is denied, as it is an overbroad contention

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 78 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Defendant’s interrogatory no. 3 asks for “all facts supporting each [and] every

contention in the complaint, answer and affirmative defenses.” 

2

interrogatory.1 See Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 424, 427-28 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (noting that each

interrogatory has to be judged in terms of its scope and overall context of the case at the time it is

asked). Defendant, however, may redraft the interrogatory into multiple interrogatories to reflect

more particularized contentions. 

Plaintiff is further ordered to provide supplemental responses to defendant’s request for

production of documents, nos. 36, 37, 39, 50, 53, 73, and 74, within fifteen days. Plaintiff shall

provide responses to the requests, as more precisely defined during meet and confer efforts and

at the hearing. To the extent plaintiff has no responsive documents in her possession, she shall

provide a certification to that effect. 

Plaintiff is further ordered to support any claim of privilege – with respect to these and

any other discovery request – with a privilege log that accounts for each withheld document and

complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 13, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00232-JAM-EFB Document 78 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2