gno.law

Penn Mart Realty Co. v. U. S. Financial Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · MDL 161; Civ. No. 74-281-T · 1975-02-13 · Published

In re U. S. FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION. PENN MART REALTY COMPANY, a corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. U. S. FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, Defendants U. S. FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, Cross-Claimant v. Robert H. WALTER, Cross-Defendants

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Turrentine (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:48Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a set of 2,736 interrogatories served by defendants Gant and Asaro in a multidistrict securities litigation and found them unduly burdensome. The court struck the interrogatories sua sponte and granted leave to serve a reasonable number of questions.

What the court decidedThe model
Interrogatories of Gant and Asaro are struck
“The court, sua sponte, strikes the interrogatories of Gant and Asaro.”
agree with court
The court applied Rule 26(c) to protect the party from undue burden. The record recites specific statistics (2,736 questions, estimated $24,000 cost, massive duplication in an MDL context) that support a finding of oppressiveness. The decision to strike rather than limit is a permissible exercise of discretion given the extreme volume and the availability of leave to re-serve reasonable questions.
Leave granted to serve reasonable interrogatories
“Leave is hereby granted to serve and file interrogatories reasonable in number calculated to discover important facts rather than numerous and minor evidentiary details.”
agree with court
Granting leave to re-serve is a standard procedural remedy that balances the need for discovery with the need to prevent abuse. It aligns with the court's stated philosophy of liberal discovery while imposing necessary limits.

The order itself: sound — The order is well-reasoned. It cites the correct procedural rules (Rule 26) and provides a detailed factual basis for the finding of undue burden, including cost estimates and the specific context of the MDL. It distinguishes between the general right to discovery and the specific need to tailor interrogatories to avoid oppression. The reliance on district court cases from other jurisdictions is appropriate for persuasive authority on the standard of 'undue burden' in the absence of a specific Supreme Court precedent on the exact number of interrogatories.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Turrentine

ORDER STRIKING INTERROGATORIES

TURRENTINE, District Judge.

This court is charged with the duty of conducting the pretrial discovery proceedings in fourteen cases which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to this district as part of the U. S. Financial Securities Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

On February 7,1975, the court received a copy of a behemoth set of interrogatories served by mail on the defendant U. S. Financial by the defendants Gant and Asaro. Additional copies were served on fourteen plaintiffs’ attorneys, thirty-three defendants’ attorneys, fifteen defendants who may not be represented by counsel, and five related and interested parties.

The set of interrogatories is two inches high, 381 pages long, and contains a total of 2,736 questions and subparts.

*498It was expensive to prepare, copy, and mail these interrogatories. Answering the questions will be much more burdensome. If an attorney takes ten minutes to answer each of the 2,736 questions and subparts, and charges $50.00 an hour, his fee will be $22,800. At three answers to a page the answers will fill 916 pages and measure six inches high. To mail copies to the sixty-seven parties on the service list, it will be necessary to reproduce a total of 60,192 pages. At $.03 a page, copying will cost $1,800. A conservative estimate of the total cost of answering is $24,000.

The above statistics pertain to answering one set of interrogatories. The scope of the problem in the context of this litigation as a whole is much larger. Already the plaintiffs have served a unified set of interrogatories on the defendants. One of the major defendants has directed separate interrogatories at six groups of plaintiffs. Other defendants have served a unified set of interrogatories on a list of thirty other defendants. If now every defendant proceeds to indiscriminately interrogate cross-claiming defendants the barrage of useless paperwork will be insurmountable. There are in excess of 300 cross-claims in this litigation. If 300 interrogatories of 381 pages are sent to each of the sixty-seven parties on the service list, the Xerox machines will have to grind out 7,535,800 pieces of paper which will occupy 3,768 linear feet of storage space. Answering will of course involve a proportionately greater volume of paperwork.

We exaggerate the possibilities, but the threat of massive duplication, waste, and confusion are real.

Generally, “the frequency and scope of [interrogatories and other discovery methods] is not limited.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(a). But the court may make a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Excessively long interrogatories have been ruled an undue burden and abuse of the discovery process. Breeland v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 26 F.R.D. 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1960) (200 interrogatories and subparts); Frost v. Williams, 46 F.R.D. 484 (D.Md.1969) (200 interrogatories); Krantz v. United States, 56 F.R.D. 555 (W.D.Va.1972) (1,500 interrogatories).

This court adheres to a philosophy of liberal discovery. It recognizes that unfettered discovery of all materials relevant to the case should be permitted and that discovery need not be limited to facts admissible at trial. But to avoid oppressiveness, interrogatories must be tailored to discover only what is reasonable and necessary to the litigation at hand. A review of the interrogatories propounded by Gant and Asaro indicates that some of the questions are pertinent to defending against U.S. Financial’s cross-claim, but that effective discovery can be accomplished by less voluminous, detailed interrogatories.

The court finds that the interrogatories of Gant and Asaro are unduly burdensome and oppressive when viewed with relation to this case.

The court, sua sponte, strikes the interrogatories of Gant and Asaro.

Leave is hereby granted to serve and file interrogatories reasonable in number calculated to discover important facts rather than numerous and minor evidentiary details.

Cited by