UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey M. Gray

Janette L. Gray

v. Civil No. 08-cv-443-PB

Lisa A. Sorenson

Scott L. Sorenson

O R D E R

Plaintiffs move to compel answers to their final set of

interrogatories. Defendant objects on the basis that any

incompleteness, tardiness or omission is harmless.

Background

After six years of involved battles in two states,

plaintiffs lost custody of their minor children to defendant. 

They have been subject to state court orders prohibiting them

from harassing plaintiff. They have now brought this federal

action. The case has been removed from the trial list and was

previously subject to an order prohibiting filings.

On December 15, 2009, Judge Barbadoro entered an order

prohibiting further court filings until he ruled on a pending

motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs then served six interrogatories,

which were not answered until February 23, 2010, more than thirty

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 6
days after service of the interrogatories, but only eight days

after Judge Barbadoro’s order denying the motion to dismiss

without prejudice. It was certainly reasonable to assume that

the stay order also stayed discovery, particularly since the case

was removed from the trial docket. I find that any delay in

answering is excusable.

Plaintiffs also complain about the substantive answers to

interrogatories. They are considered in order.

A. Interrogatory No. 2

2. State your name, mailing address, location

address; include the location of plaintiff’s

minor children’s location address.

ANSWER:

Lisa & Scott Sorenson

P.O. Box 916

Biddeford, Maine 04005

Plaintiffs argue that the location address of defendant and

the minor children should have been provided because their third

amended complaint alleges a residential address. The relevance

arguments are without merit. Considering that plaintiffs are

enjoined from contact, defendant is justified in not supplying

any residential answers. Motion denied as to No. 2.

B. Interrogatory No. 3

3. With respect to each cell phone and/or land

2

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 6
line telephone you had during the period of

January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006, please

state:

a) Whether a cell phone or a land line;

b) Telephone number;

c) Name of the telephone service provider;

d) Attach hereto copies of all complete

telephone bills for that period of time.

ANSWER:

a) During the time period January 1, 2009

to June 30, 2006, we had a pay-as-you-go

cell phone which generated no records

and a land line [207-282-3421] shared

with other persons not party to this

matter.

b) 207-282-3421 land line

c) Time Warner - digital service

d) There are no records from the cell phone

and the landline information is

confidential as to the other party and

can not be shared with Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs have failed to show the relevance of any

information beyond that which was provided. The motion is denied

as to No. 3. Whether or how interrogatories may have been

answered in state court may be fruit for cross-examination but it

is not a basis to compel parties to change federal discovery

answers. Denied.

C. Interrogatory No. 4

4. If you contend that you have a legal, state

constitutional right and or federal

constitutional right and superior right over

3

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 6
the plaintiff’s parental custodial rights to

make decisions concerning the care, custody

and control over the plaintiff’s minor

children state and identify all facts and

legal basis on which you base that

contention.

ANSWER:

See Consolidated Guardianships of Jonathon

and Leeanna Gray, Docket Nos. 2006-0087 &

2006-0088 York Probate Court, Alfred, Maine.

Reference to a state court proceeding which determined

custodial rights is a more-than-adequate answer. Denied.

D. Interrogatories 5, 6, and 7

5. Please identify all witness [sic] you intend

to call at trial. In answering this

interrogatory identify fully, giving the

witness’ name, mailing address, location

address, telephone number, employer,

affiliation, if any, to the parties, the

substance of their testimony and the source

of their knowledge on same.

ANSWER:

At this time, Defendant has not identified

which witnesses would be called for any

hearing if this matter is not dismissed.

6. State the name and address of each person

whom you intend to call as an expert witness

at trial in this case, identify fully, giving

name, residence and business address and all

other pertinent information concerning each

person whom you expect to call as an expert

witness at the trial or the above-captioned

case.

4

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 6
ANSWER:

See answer to #5.

7. With reference to each person inquired of in

the previous interrogatory, please state the

following:

a) The subject matter on which each expert

is expected to testify;

b) The substance of the facts and opinions

to which each expert is expected to

testify;

c) The summary of the grounds of each opinion

for each expert;

d) The experience, education, background and

training of each expert. With respect to

each such expert, state whether or not

written reports were prepared and or

submitted to anyone, identify who the report

was submitted to, and attach a copy of such

report.

ANSWER:

See answer to #5.

The answer to #5 is sufficient since the parties do not need

to make this decision until filing the final pretrial statement. 

The only “Pretrial Order” I found on the docket was Document No.

31, which required plaintiffs to make expert disclosures by

October 1, 2009, and defendant by November 1, 2009. If the

parties did not make disclosures then, it is too late to do so

absent a further court order. Therefore, interrogatory #6 and

interrogatory #7 are moot either because the information was

5

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 6
provided on November 1, 2009, or because it is too late. Denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 2, 2010

cc: Jeffrey M. Gray, pro se

 Janette L. Gray, pro se

 Daniel D. Lustenberger, Esq.

6

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 105 Filed 04/02/10 Page 6 of 6