Sigman et al v. CSX Corporation et al, No. 3:2015cv13328 - Document 120 (S.D.W. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 109 MOTION by Sperry Rail, Inc. to Compel Plaintiffs to respond to Sperry Rail, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; directing Plaintiffs to provide supplemental answers within 14 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 12/27/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sigman et al v. CSX Corporation et al Doc. 120 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION BRAN D Y SIGMAN , e t al., Plain tiffs , v. Cas e N o .: 3 :15-cv-13 3 2 8 CSX CORPORATION , an d CSX TRAN SPORTATION , IN C., an d SPERRY RAIL, IN C. D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending is Defendant Sperry Rail, Inc.’s Motion to Com pel Plaintiffs to Respond to Sperry’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Docum ents. (ECF No. 10 9). Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to the m otion, (ECF No. 114), and Sperry Rail, Inc. (“Sperry”) has filed a reply m em orandum . (ECF No. 119). The issues in dispute are clear; therefore, oral argum ent on the m otion is unnecessary. For the following reasons, the court GRAN TS, in part, and D EN IES, in part, Sperry’s m otion. This civil action, arising from a train derailm ent in Fayette County, West Virginia, has been designated a com plex case under this district’s local rules. Consequently, discovery has not progressed as rapidly as usual. Although the case was rem oved to this court in Septem ber 20 15, discovery did not begin until the m iddle of J anuary 20 16. While the extent of the discovery undertaken is not entirely clear from the docket sheet, a recent scheduling order set a deadline of Decem ber 31, 20 16 to serve requests for the production of docum ents and a deadline of February 28, 20 17 for fact witness depositions. (ECF No. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 10 7). Deadlines related to expert witness discovery and a trial plan for bellwether cases have not yet been determ ined. Therefore, considerable discovery rem ains to be com pleted. Sperry asks the court to com pel Plaintiffs to respond to seven interrogatories and nine requests for the production of docum ents contained in Sperry’s second set of written discovery. The seven interrogatories ask for inform ation related to Plaintiffs’ liability claim s and contentions, and the nine docum ent requests seek the supporting docum entation. Plaintiffs have objected to all of the discovery requests on the basis that they are “prem ature.” (ECF No. 10 9-2). Sperry argues that it is entitled to full and com plete answers to the discovery requests in order to “focus the issues in dispute,” and to determ ine whether Plaintiffs’ claim s are preem pted by federal law. (ECF No. 110 at 8-12). Sperry contends that Plaintiffs’ objections to the discovery requests are generic and non-specific and, thus, violate the applicable rules of civil procedure and case law of this circuit. Furtherm ore, Sperry asserts that Plaintiffs should be capable of responding to the discovery considering that (1) the derailm ent occurred nearly two years ago, and (2) Plaintiffs have taken com prehensive depositions of Sperry’s em ployees. In response, Plaintiffs m aintain that the interrogatories and docum ent requests are prem ature until fact and expert witness discovery is com pleted. Plaintiffs argue that new and additional theories of liability m ay be developed through discovery; accordingly, their theories cannot be fully articulated until that tim e. Plaintiffs point to the Manual for Com plex Litigation, § 11.34, to support their position that an order requiring them to disclose their theories of liability is not appropriate until the case enters the sum m ary judgm ent stage. (ECF No. 114). 2 Co n t e n t io n In t e r r o g a t o r ie s The seven interrogatories in dispute are known as “contention interrogatories.” “Contention interrogatories have been defined as interrogatories that request a litigant ‘to state what it contends; to state whether it m akes a specified contention; to state all facts upon which it bases a contention; to take a position, and explain or defend that position ... or to state the legal or theoretical basis for a contention.’” Taggart v. Dam on Motor Coach, No. 5:0 5-CV-0 0 191, 20 0 7 WL 15210 1, at *7 (N.D. W. Va. J an. 17, 20 0 7) (quoting B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 155 F.R.D. 525, 527 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). Contention interrogatories are expressly perm itted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) and are considered useful to “help pin down an opponent's legal theories in a case as well as the prim ary facts supporting them .” Jay ne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651, 652 (D. Md. 1997)). Nevertheless, m ost courts agree that “[d]ue to the nature of contention interrogatories, they are m ore appropriately used after a substantial am ount of discovery has been conducted—typically at the end of the discovery period.” Capacchione v . Charlotte– Mecklenburg Board of Education, 182 F.R.D. 486, 489 (W.D.N.C. 1998). Prem ature contention interrogatories are discouraged for several reasons. First, there is “the unfairness of requiring a party to prem aturely articulate theories which have not yet been fully developed.” Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hew lett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 66 (N.D.N.Y. 20 0 3). In addition, “a lawyer's unwillingness to com m it to a position without an adequately developed record will likely lead to vague, am biguous responses,” which are effectively useless. Taggert, 20 0 7 WL 15210 1, at *8 (citing In re Convergent Technologies Sec. Litig., 10 8 F.R.D. 328, 338 (N.D. Cal. 1985)). Moreover, in cases where the parties anticipate the production of “an expert report which will touch on the very 3 contentions at issue, the Court should norm ally delay contention discovery until after the expert reports have been served, which m ay then render m oot any further contention discovery.” BB & T Corp. v. United States, 233 F.R.D. 447, 450 – 51 (M.D.N.C. 20 0 6) (citing United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 20 8 F.R.D. 553, 558 (M.D.N.C. 20 0 2)). Here, although the case has been pending on the court’s docket for m ore than a year, discovery is not nearing its end. One of Plaintiffs’ experts only recently exam ined the track at issue, and no expert reports have been exchanged. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Sperry’s contention interrogatories are prem ature and D EN IES, without prejudice, Sperry’s m otion to com pel answers to the interrogatories. The court notes that Plaintiffs have not objected to the interrogatories on any ground other than their prem aturity. Therefore, Plaintiffs shall be required to respond to the interrogatories in conjunction with or very after shortly after the production of expert reports, and prior to the close of all discovery. See Capacchione, 182 F.R.D. at 489-90 . R e q u e s t s fo r t h e Pr o d u ct io n o f D o cu m e n t s Sperry also requests an order com pelling Plaintiffs to produce docum ents responsive to the first nine docum ent requests set out in Sperry’s second set of discovery. Once again, Plaintiffs claim that the requests are prem ature. The undersigned disagrees. Although Plaintiffs m ay not have finalized all of their theories of liability, the docum ent requests do not require a final production of docum ents, rather they seek m aterials currently in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, which are relied upon to support their discrete liability allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs have documents in their custody or control that they believe support their claim s, the docum ents should be produced to Defendants. As additional responsive docum ents are identified, Plaintiffs are required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) to prom ptly 4 supplem ent their answers to Sperry’s requests for the production of docum ents. Therefore, Sperry’s m otion to com pel answers to their docum ent requests, second set, num bers 1 through 9 is GRAN TED . Plaintiffs are ORD ERED to provide supplem ental answers within fo u rte e n ( 14 ) d ays of the date of this Order. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. EN TERED : December 27, 20 16 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
