UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel W. Miles, et al.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-056-JM

W. John Funk, et al.

O R D E R

 Defendants move to compel discovery in response to their

Interrogatory No. 4/Request for Production No. D and

Interrogatory No. 3/Request for Production No. C. Plaintiffs

object. 

I. Timeliness of Motion. 

As an initial matter plaintiffs maintain that the motion

should be denied because it was filed on March 1st, the date set

forth in the Pretrial Discovery Order as the discovery deadline. 

Chief Judge McAuliffe has previously ruled that the discovery

deadline is the deadline for requesting new discovery but not the

deadline to move to compel already requested discovery. See Gray

v. St. Martin’s Press, 95-CV-285-M, p.4 (D.N.H. 3/18/97). This

court has consistently followed that determination since then. 

The motion is timely. 

Case 1:05-cv-00056-JM Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 4
2

II. Interrogatory No. 4/Request D. 

Interrogatory No. 4: Do the plaintiffs claim any

inability to fund the pursuit of their alleged claims

against VWTOA? If so, please provide with respect to each

plaintiff the following information as of January 1, 2002,

January 1, 2003, January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2005: 

a. A list of assets and their approximate values;

b. A list of outstanding liabilities; 

c. Annual income. 

D. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 4 is anything

other than an unqualified no, any and all financial

statements, loan applications, and tax returns of the

plaintiffs filed or prepared since January 1, 2002. 

Answer to No. 4: 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

objections, the Plaintiffs state that interrogatory No. 4 is

unrelated to in any reasonable way the issues that are

before the court. Further, all maters relating to the

payment of attorneys fees or ability to pay attorneys fees

may be subject to the Attorney Client Privilege and will not

be disclosed. 

Without waiving any Attorney Client Privilege matter

the Plaintiffs state that Plaintiffs relied on the financial

strength and resources of Clarice Neumann in order to pursue

their rights in the Clarice Neumann et al litigation. Given

the scope of that litigation the Plaintiffs could not fund

the litigation without the assistance of Clarice Neumann. 

Further, Plaintiffs state that the Defendants were made

aware of the importance of Clarice Neumann’s financial

strength during the first meeting between Clarice Neumann,

Daniel Miles, Michael Ramsdell and John Funk. The

Plaintiffs object to the Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent

it seeks financial information of the Plaintiffs for the

years 2002 through 2005. This request is outrageous,

irrelevant, burdensome and inappropriate. 

Case 1:05-cv-00056-JM Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 4
3

The answer to the interrogatory as well as answers to

deposition questions attached to the objection make it clear that

plaintiffs have reiterated their inability to pay as they

themselves alleged in paragraph 9 of their complaint. Plaintiffs

cannot plead poverty and then refuse discovery to test it. The

motion is granted as to this interrogatory and request. 

Compliance is due in ten (10) business days. LR 37.1(b). 

III. Interrogatory No. 3/Request C. 

Interrogatory No. 3: Is Clarice Neumann providing

funding or any other assistance to the plaintiffs with

respect to this action? If so, please describe in detail. 

C. Any and all documents constituting, or relating or

referring to, the funding or any other assistance identified

in the response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

Answer to No. 3: 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing

objections, Plaintiffs state that interrogatory No. 3 is

unrelated to in any reasonable way to the issues that are

before the court. Further, all matters relating to the

payment of attorneys fees are subject to the Attorney Client

Privilege and will not be disclosed. 

Plaintiffs’ assertion of a lack of relevance is a thundering

silence by defendants. Without a showing of relevance to a claim

or defense defendants are not entitled to this discovery. The

motion is denied as to this interrogatory and request. 

Case 1:05-cv-00056-JM Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 4
4

Since each party has “won” one-half of the dispute neither

party is entitled to fees or costs. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 10, 2006

cc: Evan M. Fray-Witzer, Esq.

 Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.

 Michael C. McLaughlin, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00056-JM Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 Page 4 of 4