Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Defendants Propounding Identical Discovery

What purpose does it serve? For instance, I represent plain jd4hire10/04/18
Have you researched the law to see whether D's responses to jeffm10/04/18
We have case law that information contained in pleadings is jd4hire10/04/18
Not sure what all you are describing, but again, I think B w jeffm10/04/18
That's why you would just serve the discovery requests styli onehell10/04/18
Yeah, I suppose so if the entire sets were identical. jeffm10/04/18
Seriously? Unverified pleadings? That sounds crazy to me. therewillbeblood10/04/18
We have the same rule. Verification doesn't matter. If you jeffm10/04/18
jd4hire (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:12 pm)

What purpose does it serve? For instance, I represent plaintiff, individually and in capacity as executor of estate. Suit was filed against defendant employee and defendant employer. Same attorney got the defense for both defendants. They then proceeded to propound identical discovery to plaintiff indiviudally and as executor.

I thought this was odd and then the same situation happened again. Why would a defendant waste finite interrogatories or request the exact same documents (or why would they even have two requests when requests are unlimited).

Billing time for "drafting?"

Reply
jeffm (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:29 pm)

Have you researched the law to see whether D's responses to A are admissible by B, whether they would constitute admissions in favor of B, whether B could compel responses if A was non-suited, etc.?

One thing that comes to mind is the duty to supplement prior to trial. If D doesn't supplement responses to A's requests, I doubt B could complain or claim surprise in order to exclude the new information.

Reply
jd4hire (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:37 pm)

We have case law that information contained in pleadings is a party admission. IT doesn't go into detail as to your first paragraph - party admissions.

In my example, my client was asked for their home address four separate times via interrogatory. Other mundane information such as educational background, etc.

I understand needing an expert interrogatory in each capacity to avoid any "well, the expert was retained in plaintiff's capacity as executor," but when interrogatories are limited, I would have used them much differently. Made responding easy - copy and paste...

Reply
jeffm (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:40 pm)

Not sure what all you are describing, but again, I think B would not be permitted to complain about D's failure to supplement answers to A's requests.

As far as answering, you could just make one set and title it, "D's Responses to A's and B's Discovery Requests."

Reply
onehell (Oct 4, 2018 - 7:09 pm)

That's why you would just serve the discovery requests stylized as coming from Defendant*S* (plural).

I can't see why you would do what OP describes other than to run up the bill.

Reply
jeffm (Oct 4, 2018 - 10:35 pm)

Yeah, I suppose so if the entire sets were identical.

Reply
therewillbeblood (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:48 pm)

Seriously? Unverified pleadings? That sounds crazy to me.

Reply
jeffm (Oct 4, 2018 - 4:53 pm)

We have the same rule. Verification doesn't matter. If you plead "X," D can assume X is established.

Reply
Post a message in this thread