bourne
"The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBEC
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 15
Anyway, what I'm wondering now is: (1) if the interrogatories were duplicative enough to become so burdensome, why didn't they respond with "see answer to Interrogatory # 3". I've seen that done in other cases as questions do have a natural tendency to overlap. That would take no time. Answer it one time, see that it's asked another 3 times and repeat "See interrogatory answer number so and so". You could wrap up that pleading rather speedily IMO.
Maybe they'll get that order signed and not have to respond this time. But, surely they know that the Court doesn't like to babysit over things like this. And I don't think defense counsel will take too kindly to plaintiffs counsel calling them malicious. Not the best foot to start off on. I hardly think one or two emails attempting to resolve this warranted a plea to the Court because defense counsel is being a big meanie.
I know plaintiffs are ready for a trial (because a jury has heart!) but discovery has to happen before that. Both sides are entitled.
IMO
This is self-evident: 105 interrogatories for which to write replies to is *excessive* to say the least. Even if just to write "See...blah, blah, blah".